Methods for determining therapeutic index from gene expression profiles

ABSTRACT

This invention provides methods for determining drug specificity, therapeutic index and effective doses for individual patients. According to the methods of the invention, graded levels of drug are applied to a biological sample or a patient. A plurality of cellular constituents are measured to determine the activity of the drug on a target pathway and at least one off-target pathway. A drug specificity is determined by comparing the target and off target activities of the drug. A therapeutic concentration (or dose) is defined as a concentration (or dose) of the drug that induces certain response in the target pathway. A toxic concentration (or dose) is defined as a concentration (or dose) of the drug that induces certain response in the off target pathway. Therapeutic index is the ratio of the toxic concentration over therapeutic concentration. Methods are also provided to determine an effective dose of a drug for a patient by measuring the activity of the drug on the particular patient.

1. INTRODUCTION

The field of this invention relates to methods for assessing ordetermining the relative therapeutic efficacy versus toxicity of a drug.Specifically, this invention provides methods for evaluating theefficacy and toxicity of a drug by examining the effect of the drug on atarget gene expression pathway versus that on off target gene expressionpathways. In addition, this invention also provides methods forpharmacodynamic monitoring of drug therapy in individual subjects.

2. BACKGROUND OF INVENTION

The goal of drug discovery is to develop a safe and effective drug.However, most drugs cause adverse reactions in patients. Nies andSpielberg, 1996, Principles of Therapeutics, in THE PHARMACOLOGICALBASIS OF THERAPEUTICS, (Hardman and Limbird, eds.), McGraw-Hill: NewYork. The benefits of a drug, therefore, must be evaluated based uponthe anticipated benefits and potential adverse reactions. Id. Thecurrent methods for assessing safety and efficacy, however, areinsufficient to meet the demand of ever increasing speed of drugdiscovery and individual drug therapy decision making.

2.1. Pharmacological Indicators

Various pharmacological indicators have been developed to evaluate drugefficacy and toxicity. Both potency and toxicity of a drug can beevaluated using dose response curves. A dose response curve is a graphicrepresentation of the relationship of dose of a drug applied to asubject versus the response of a subject to the drug (beneficial ortoxic effect). Many pharmacological indicators are based upon doseresponse curves.

Two distinct types of dose response curves are used for estimatingvarious pharmacological indicators. A “graded response curve” depicts aresponse of an individual subject to varying doses of a drug. Acontinuously increasing response up to a maximum can be achieved asdoses of a drug are increased. A graded response curve is typically ahyperbolic curve. If the dose is in a logarithmical scale, a gradedresponse curve is generally a S-shaped curve. Graded response curves aregenerally for analyzing individual responses.

A quantal dose response curve is a graphic representation of cumulativefrequency of number of subjects responding versus the dose inlogarithmic scale. Several important pharmacological indicators arecalculated according to the distribution of responding subjects, i.e.,the quantal response curve. Medium effective dose (ED₅₀) is the dose atwhich 50% of the population expresses a specified response. Mediumlethal dose (LD₅₀) is the dose at which 50% of the population dies.Medium toxic dose (TD₅₀) is the dose at which 50% of the populationexpresses a specified toxic effect.

One particularly useful pharmacological indicator is the therapeuticindex which is traditionally defined as the ratio of LD₅₀ to ED₅₀ or theratio of TD₅₀ to ED₅₀. Therapeutic index provides a simple and usefulindicator of the benefit versus adverse effect of a drug. Those drugswhich have a high therapeutic index have a large therapeutic window,i.e., the drugs may be administered over a wider range of effectivedoses without incurring significant adverse events. Conversely, drugshaving a small therapeutic index have a small therapeutic window (smallrange of effective doses without incurring significant adverse events).Treatment with a drug having a small therapeutic window requires closemonitoring.

However, pharmacological indicators, such as the therapeutic indexdefined above, are often impractical for several reasons. First, asdiscussed above, those pharmacological indicators are generallydetermined from the effect of a drug or drug candidate on a population(from quantal response curves), a determination of the above describedtherapeutic index requires extensive animal or clinical experiments.Such experimentation can be lengthy and costly. Secondly, in vitroexperiments, particularly clinical trials, are often conducted at thelate stage of drug development. Because of the late stage evaluation, agreat expense could incur in researching a drug candidate only to findthat the drug candidate has a very low therapeutic index (smalltherapeutic window).

Therefore, it would be a significant benefit to be able to evaluate thesafety and efficacy of a drug candidate during early stages of leadcompound selection in drug discovery. Accordingly, this inventionprovides methods for evaluating drug safety and efficacy that aresuitable for early screening of drug candidates.

2.2. Drug Effect in Individuals

Pharmacological indicators, such as the therapeutic index defined above,are only pertinent to a population. The efficacy and toxicity of a drugto an individual, however, may vary due to a number of factors such asgenetic variations, and changing physiological or pathologicalconditions. A “safe” and “effective” drug to a population with a lowtherapeutic index may become deadly to an individual. Conversely, a drugwith a low therapeutic index may be highly effective with tolerable sideeffects in some individuals.

In a clinical setting, a physician must select, among several drugs, themost effective and safe drug for the patient. In making this decision,the physician needs to know how an particular patient may respond to adrug. One approach to individualized therapy decision making is throughpharmacogenetics which relates individual variation in drug response togenetic variations. Pharmnacogenetics promises a better understandingthe relationship between genetic variation and drug responses. However,so far, it has only provided limited information related to about 50-100known drug metabolizing genes. In addition, pharmacogenetics does notaddress a patients' physiological or pathological conditions.

The second approach is to monitor the clinical symptoms of a patientunder drug therapy. This approach is not very effective because signs oftoxicity and other effects are often difficult to recognize. See,Yatscoff, et al., 1996, Pharmacodynamic Monitoring of ImmunosuppressiveDrugs. TRANSPLANT. PROC., 28:3013-3015.

The third approach is to assess the pharmacokinetics, i.e., drugdistribution of individual patients. The problem of this approach isthat drug concentration may not correlate well with drug effects.

More recently, pharmacodynamic monitoring, which involves themeasurement of biological effect of a drug, has been applied to themonitoring of individual patients under drug therapy. In one suchclinical experiment, adult bone marrow transplant patients were treatedwith cyclosporine A (CyA). Pai et al., 1994, Blood 82:3974. The activityof calcineurin (CN), a serine-thronine phosphatase that has an essentialrole in calcium-dependent signal transduction, was monitored in thosepatients as an indicator of drug action. The activity of CN, however,was found not to be highly correlated with the effect of the drug.Another problem of the current pharmacodynamic monitoring approach isthat only one or few enzymes are monitored. Drug actions, however, areoften extensive, directly or indirectly affecting many differentpathways.

Therefore, there is a great need for methods useful for monitoring drugactions in individual patients. Accordingly, this invention providesmethods useful for monitoring both the beneficial and the toxic effectsof a therapeutic regimen during treatment, e.g., to determine optimumdoses for a patient which are both safe and effective to that patient.

Discussion or citation of a reference herein shall not be construed asan admission that such reference is prior art to the present invention.

3. SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

This invention provides methods for evaluating drug efficacy andtoxicity. These methods are particularly suitable for evaluation of drugcandidates in the early phases of drug discovery. The methods of theinvention are also useful for determining the most suitable doses for aparticular patient (an animal or a human).

This invention is partially based upon the ability to detect specificactions of a drug on biological pathways. A target pathway of a drug ortherapy refers to the biological pathway associated with a particulareffect of a therapy, i.e., with a particular “therapeutic effect”. Anoff-target pathway refers to a pathway that is not associated with theparticular therapeutic effect. Therapeutic activity of a drug is,therefore, the ability of a drug to affect the target pathway. A drug'sactivity on off-target pathways represents the non-specific action ofthe drug and are not desired. Toxicity or other adverse reaction mayresult from the nonspecific action on off-target pathways.

Accordingly, this invention provides methods to decompose and comparethe drug activity on target and on off-target pathways.

In one aspect of the invention, methods for determining a specificityindex of a drug against a target pathway in a biological sample areprovided. In some embodiments, the activity of a drug against its targetpathway is determined to obtain a target activity (D_(target)). Theactivity of the drug against at least one pathway other than the targetpathway is also determined to obtain at least one off-target activity(D_(off-target)). The therapeutic index is calculated according to theformula: SI=n·D_(target,)/ΣD_(off-target) where the n is the number ofoff target pathways.

In some other embodiments, methods of determining a therapeutic index ofa drug in a biological sample are provided. In some embodiments, aplurality of levels of the drug is applied to the biological sample. Aminimum concentration (C_(target)) for inducing a threshold response ina target pathway is determined. A minimum concentration (C_(off-target))for inducing a threshold response in an off-target pathway is alsodetermined. A therapeutic index is calculated according to the formula:TI=C_(off-target)/C_(target).

In a particularly preferred embodiment, a drug is applied to abiological sample at graded levels. The responses of a plurality ofgenes in a target pathway and in off-target pathways are determined. Theconcentration above which the majority of the genes in the targetpathway is induced or repressed by 2 fold, preferably more than 3 fold,more preferably more than 10 fold, is defined as the therapeuticconcentration (C_(target)) Similarly, the concentration above which themajority of the genes in the off-target pathway is induced or repressedby 2 fold, preferably more than, 3 fold, more preferably more than 10fold, is defined as the toxic concentration (C_(off-target)).

In yet another aspect of the invention, methods are provided to monitordrug therapy in individual patients. The effect of drug therapy upon aplurality of cellular constituents is measured. The response of cellularconstituents is used to decipher the effect of the drug therapy upontarget and off-target pathways. Successful therapy scheme should be theone that beneficially affects the target pathway without adverselyaffecting off-target pathways.

In another aspect of the invention, methods are provided to determine anoptimal therapeutic dose of a drug in an individual patient. In someembodiments, a patient is subjected to non-toxic levels of a pluralityof perturbations to obtain a perturbation profile consisting of aplurality of cellular constituent measurements. The patient is thensubject to a plurality of levels of the drug to obtain a drug responseprofile consisting of a plurality of cellular constituent measurements.The drug activity on target pathway and oft target pathways aredetermined by decomposing the drug response profile using theperturbation profile.

This invention also provides computer systems and database systems fordecomposing drug activities, determining specificity index, calculatingtherapeutic index, evaluating drug therapies and performingindividualized effective dosage determination.

4. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES

FIG 1 illustrates exemplary pathways hypothesized for the action of drugD on a biological system.

FIG. 2A illustrates exemplary responses of expression of genes G1, G2,and G3 in the biological system of FIG. 1 to exposure to drug D (valuesare normalized to untreated value); FIG. 2B illustrates exemplaryresponses of genes G1, G2, and G3 in pathway originating at protein P1to graded perturbations of P1; FIG. 2C illustrates an exemplarycorrelation between response illustrated in FIGS. 2A-B.

FIG. 3 illustrates response curves of the 30 yeast genes, out ofapproximately 6000 measured yeast genes, that had the largest expressionratio changes to methotrexate drug exposure; methotrexate exposurelevels were 3, 6, 25, 50, 100, and 200 μM; the 100 μM titration resultedin a 50% growth defect; responses have been set to zero at the arbitraryabscissa of −0.5.

FIG. 4 illustrates the fit of a Hill function to the response of geneYOL031C illustrated in FIG. 3.

FIG. 5 illustrates a flow chart of one method for determining drugresponse of pathways.

FIG. 6 illustrates possible alternative pathways for the action of drugD on Gene G_(k).

FIGS. 7A-B illustrate surface renderings of Eqns. 10 and 11.

FIGS. 8A-C show the response of a number of yeast genes to FK506.

FIG. 9 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of a computer system of thisinvention.

5. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

This section presents a detailed description of the present inventionand its applications. This description is by way of several exemplaryillustrations, in increasing detail and specificity, of the generalmethods of this invention. These examples are non-limiting, and relatedvariants that will be apparent to one of skill in the art are intendedto be encompassed by the appended claims.

5.1. Introduction

A drug exerts its action by affecting biological pathways. If a diseaseis caused by an alteration of a particular pathway, a drug thatspecifically restores the state of the pathway may be an effectivetherapeutic agent for the disease. The effect of a drug, however, is notalways specific against a target pathway. “Off-target” pathways may alsobe affected, which may result in side effects or other adversereactions.

Accordingly, in one aspect of the invention, the specificity of theactions of a drug is determined by comparing the drug's effect on targetpathways and “off-target” pathways in an in vitro model system. Inanother aspect, this invention provides in vitro models for assessingthe relative in vitro efficacy and/or toxicity of a drug candidate. Inyet another aspect, this invention provides methods for determining theefficacy and toxicity of a drug on individual patients or animals.

This section first presents certain concepts of the invention, includingthose of drug action or effect, of the biological state of a cell, andof biological pathways. Next, methods for determining the effect of adrug on different pathways are presented. The following sections presentmethods of the invention.

5.1.1. Drug Action and Biological Pathways

Drugs, as defined herein, are any compounds of any degree of complexitythat perturb a biological system, whether by known or unknownmechanisms, whether or not they are used therapeutically, and whether ornot their effects are beneficial (e.g., therapeutic) or toxic to abiological system. Drugs thus include: typical small molecules ofresearch or therapeutic interest; naturally-occurring factors, such asendocrine, paracrine, or autocrine factors or factors interacting withcell receptors of all types; intracellular factors, such as elements ofintracellular signaling pathways; factors isolated from other naturalsources; and so forth. The biological effect of a drug may be aconsequence of, inter alia, drug-mediated changes in the rate oftranscription or degradation of one or more species of RNA, the rate orextent of translation or post-translational processing of one or morepolypeptides, the rate or extent of the degradation of one or moreproteins, the inhibition or stimulation of the action or activity of oneor more proteins, and so forth. In fact, most drugs exert their affectsby interacting with a protein. Drugs that increase rates or stimulateactivities of a protein are called herein “activating drugs,” whiledrugs that decrease rates or inhibit activities of a protein are calledherein “inhibiting drugs.”

Drug effects on a cell, whether therapeutic or toxic and howevermeasured in a particular implementation, are generally represented bycombining the effects of the drug on individual pathways. For example,FIG 1 illustrates that drug D acts on a cell by interacting withbiological pathways 101, 102, and 103 (details of pathway 103 are notillustrated). The arcs between drug D and these pathways representpossible action of drug D on these pathways. The entire action of drug Don the cell is assumed to be expressible as a combination of drug D'sactions on one or more of these three pathways. In the followingparagraphs, first, biological pathways as generally used according tothis invention are described, followed by description of particularbiological pathways to which this invention is advantageously applied.

As used herein, a biological pathway is generally understood to be acollection of cellular constituents related in that each cellularconstituent of the collection is influenced according to some biologicalmechanism by one or more other cellular constituents in the collection.The cellular constituents making up a particular pathway can be drawnfrom any aspect of the biological state of a cell, for example, from thetranscriptional state, or the translational state, or the activitystate, or mixed aspects of the biological state. Therefore, cellularconstituents of a pathway can include MRNA levels, protein abundances,protein activities, degree of protein or nucleic acid modification(e.g., phosphorylation or methylation), combinations of these types ofcellular constituents, and so forth. Each cellular constituent of thecollection is influenced by at least one other cellular constituent inthe collection by some biological mechanism, which need not be specifiedor even known or understood. In illustrations presented herein, theinfluence, whether direct or indirect, of one cellular constituent onanother is presented as an arc between the two cellular constituents,and the entire pathway is presented as a network of arcs linking thecellular constituents of the pathway. A biological pathway, therefore,refers both to the collection of cellular constituents drawn from someaspect of the biological state togelther with the network of influencebetween the constituents.

For example, in FIG. 1, biological pathway 101 includes protein P1 (forexample, either the abundance or activity of P1) and genes G1, G2, andG3 (for example, their transcribed mRNA levels) together with theinfluence, direct or indirect, of protein P1 on these three genes,represented as the arc leading from P1 to these three genes. Themechanism of this influence might arise, for example, because protein P1can bind to promoters of these genes and increase the abundances oftheir transcripts.

In summary, therefore, as used herein, a biological pathway includes acollection of cellular constituents that influence one another throughany biological mechanism, known or unknown, such as by a cell'ssynthetic, regulatory, homeostatic, or control networks. The influenceof one cellular constituent on another can be, inter alia, by asynthetic transformation of the one cellular constituent into the other,by a direct physical interaction of the two cellular constituents, by anindirect interaction of the two cellular constituents mediated throughintermediate biological events, or by other mechanisms.

5.1.2. Exemplary Biological Pathways

Concrete examples of biological pathways, as understood herein, are wellknown in the art. They depend on various biological mechanisms by whichthe cellular constituents influence one another. Biological pathwaysinclude well-known biochemical pathways, for example, pathways forprotein and nucleic acid synthesis. The cellular constituents ofsynthetic pathways include enzymes and the synthetic intermediates, andthe influence of a precursor molecule on a successor molecule is bydirect enzyme-mediated conversion. Biological pathways also includesignaling and control pathways, many examples of which are also wellknown. Cellular constituents of these pathways include, typically,primary or intermediate signaling molecules, as well as the proteinsparticipating in the signal or control cascades usually characterizingthese pathways. In signaling pathways, binding of a signal molecule to areceptor usually directly influences the abundances of intermediatesignaling molecules and indirectly influences the degree ofphosphoylation (or other modification) of pathway proteins. Both ofthese effects in turn influence activities of cellular proteins that arekey effectors of the cellular processes initiated by the signal, forexample, by affecting the transcriptional state of the cell. Controlpathways such as those controlling the timing and occurrence of the cellcycle, are similar. Here, multiple, often ongoing, cellular events aretemporally coordinated, often with feedback control, to achieve aconsistent outcome, such as cell division with chromosome segregation.This coordination is a consequence of functioning of the pathway, oftenmediated by mutual influences of proteins on each other's degree ofphosphorylation (or other modification). Also, well known controlpathways seek to maintain optimal levels of cellular metabolites in theface of a fluctuating environment. Further examples of cellular pathwaysoperating according to understood mechanisms will be known to those ofskill in the art.

As noted above, the present invention is directed to determining therelative toxicity of drugs, and, in particular, to distinguishingbetween therapeutic and toxic pathways of drug action. Certain types ofbiological pathways are therefore of particular interest. Drugstypically act on a cell by directly interacting with one cellularconstituent, and, more usually, with a plurality, e.g., of 5 to 10, to50, or more cellular constituents. Therefore, pathways of particularinterest in this invention include those that originate at particularcellular constituents, and, especially, are hierarchical.

A pathway originating at particular cellular constituents includes, as afirst group, those particular cellular constituents, a second group ofcellular constituents constituents that are directly influenced by thefirst group of cellular constituents (i.e., the particular cellularconstituents), a third group of cellular constituents that are directlyinfluenced by the second group of cellular constituents, and so forth,along with the network of influences between the groups of cellularconstituents. Influences between the cellular constituents can beaccording to any biological mechanism, for example, a signalingmechanism, or a regulatory or homeostatic control mechanism, or asynthetic mechanism. In FIG. 1, pathway 101, including a protein andseveral genes, originates at protein P1. Pathway 102, including twoproteins and several genes, originates at proteins P2 and P3.

Biological pathways can also be either hierarchical or non-hierarchical,with hierarchical pathways being of particular interest in thisinvention. Generally, a hierarchical biological pathway has no feedbackloops. In more detail, a hierarchical pathway is one in which itscellular constituents can be arranged into a hierarchy of numberedlevels so that cellular constituents belonging to a particular numberedlevel can be influenced only by cellular constituents belonging tolevels of lower numbers. A hierarchical pathway originates from thelowest numbered cellular constituents. In FIG. 1, pathways 101 and 102are hierarchical. Pathway 101 is clearly hierarchical. In pathway 102,proteins P2 and P3, on a lowest numbered level, both directly affectgene G, on an intermediate numbered level. In turn, gene G, perhapsindirectly, affects genes G4, G5, and G6, all on a highest numberedlevel. In contrast, a non-hierarchical pathway has one or more feedbackloops. A feedback loop in a biological pathway is a subset of cellularconstituents of the pathway, each constituent of the feedback loopinfluences and also is influenced by other constituents of the feedbackloop. For example, in pathway 102 of FIG. 1, if gene G6, either directlyor indirectly, affected protein P3, a feedback loop including genes Gand G6 and protein P3 would be created.

When describing biological pathways associated with drug response, thosecellular constituents which interact directly with a drug are calledherein the “targets” of the drug. Further, effects of the drug on thecell flow from other cellular constituents influenced, directly orindirectly, by the direct targets of the drug. Accordingly, theoriginating cellular constituents of the pathways of interest in thisinvention are preferably those that are potential drug targets. Sincemost drug targets are proteins, pathways originating at cellularproteins are of particular interest in this invention. Hierarchicalpathways are also of interest in representing drug action, includingdrug toxicity, because the feedback loops present in non-hierarchicalpathways can obscure drug effects by causing compensating influences incellular constituents that mute drug influences.

Although drugs will usually interact directly with a plurality ofcellular constituents, more typically with a plurality of proteins,usually only direct interactions with a relatively small number of thesecellular constituents are associated with any specific, desired,therapeutic biological effect of the drug. Most preferably, only thedirect interaction of the drug with one particular cellular constituent,preferably with a particular protein, is associated with a specific,desired, therapeutic effect. The specific, desired, therapeuticbiological effect of a drug is referred to herein as the “therapeuticeffect” of the drug. Accordingly, the particular cellular constituent(or less preferably, constituents) which interact(s) directly with adrug and is (are) associated with the therapeutic effect of a drug is(are) referred to herein as the drug's “primary target(s)”.

The other cellular constituents which interact directly with the drugbut which are not primary targets of the drug are generally associatedwith other effects of the drug which are not desired and do not have atherapeutic benefit to the subject, e.g., they may be lethal or toxic.Such effects are referred to herein as “toxic effects”. Specifically, a“toxic effect” of a drug, as used herein, is any effect which is not atherapeutic effect. Those cellular constituents which interact directlywith a drug and are associated with toxic effects are referred to hereinas “off-targets” of the drug.

The following descriptions of the various embodiments of this invention,for economy of language only and without any limitation, are primarilydirected to pathways, and often only to hierarchical pathways,originating at particular proteins. In view of the followingdescription, it will be apparent to one of skill in the art how to applythe invention to pathways, including non-hierarchical pathways,originating at other cellular constituents, such as mRNA abundances.

5.1.3. Identification of Biological Pathways

The method of the invention is based upon the decomposition of drugresponse of individual cellular constituents into the responses ofdifferent biological pathways. Identification of biological pathways isoften the first step for decomposition of drug responses. However, insome embodiments, the decomposition of biological pathways issimultaneously achieved with the identification of biological pathways.

Biological pathways, particularly pathways involved in drug actions,i.e., pathways that originate at a drug target (e.g., proteins) and/orare hierarchical, can be identified for use in this invention by severalmeans. Such means for identifying such pathways have been described, indetail, by Stoughton and Friend, U.S. application Ser. No. 09/074,983,filed on May 8, 1998and Stoughton and Friend, U.S. application Ser. No.09/179,569, filed on Oct. 27, 1998 now U.S. Pat. No. 5,965,352, whichare incorporated herein by reference in their entireties.

Biological pathways for use in this invention can be identified insufficient detail by measurements of aspects of the biological state ofa cell, for example, by measurements of the transcriptional state, or ofthe translational state, or of the activity state, or of mixed aspectsof the biological state. By measurements of an aspect of the biologicalstate of a cell subject to various perturbing conditions, such asconditions resulting from exposure to various drugs or from variousgenetic manipulations, collections of cellular constituents that vary ina correlated fashion can be identified. Correlated variation meansherein that the relative variation of the cellular constituents in thecollection, in other words the pattern of variation of the cellularconstituents, is similar in the different conditions, A network ofmutual influences linking the collection of constituents into abiological pathway can be inferred from the similar pattern ofvariations in different conditions. When the various conditions duringmeasurement act on the biological pathway, the constituents of thepathway respond with similar patterns of variation determined by thetype and direction of their mutual influences. Even if neither the exactnetwork of influences nor the mechanism of their action is known, thiscollection of constituents can be used as one biological pathway in thisinvention.

For example, a drug known to act at a single defined target can be usedto measure the pathway originating from this target. A cell is exposedto varying concentrations of the drug and the cellular constituents ofan aspect of the biological state, for example, the transcriptionalstate, are measured. Those cellular constituents that vary in acorrelated pattern as the concentrations of the drug are changed can beidentified as a pathway originating at that drug. As previouslydisclosed, genes with co-varying transcription in response to a widevariety of perturbations can be grouped by cluster analysis intogenesets. Each of the genesets may represent a potential biologicalpathway. See, Stoughton and Friend, U.S. patent application Ser. No.09/179,569, filed on Oct. 27, 1998, incorporated herein by reference inits entirety for all purposes.

Additionally, as in the case of already known pathways, sub-pathways ofa measured pathway can be determined if measurement during exposure tofurther conditions reveals that sub-collections of the original pathwayvary according to different patterns. These differently varyingsub-collections then constitute sub-pathways applicable in thisinvention. Cellular constituents of the measured pathway can be groupedaccording to the sub-pathway through which they are most affected.

For example, where a pathway has been identified by measurements of acell exposed to varying concentrations of a drug, sub-pathways can beidentified by performing gene knockouts on the cell. By measuring, e.g.,the transcriptional state of a cell exposed to the drug and havingcertain gene knockouts, sub-pathways of the drug pathway originating atthe deleted gene can be identified.

Graded pathway perturbations can also be performed in several manners.In the case of known or measured pathways which originate from knownproteins or other cellular constituents, the abundance or activity ofthese proteins or other cellular constituents can be perturbed in agraded manner by methods such as mutation, transfection, controllablepromoter systems, or other drugs of specific known action.

5.1.4. Decomposition of Drug Responses into Pathway Contributions

The method of invention is based upon the ability to analyze theresponse of a biological system to the response of pathways. Oneparticularly useful method for decomposing the drug response is bycomparing measurements of changes in the biological state of a cell inresponse to graded drug exposure with measurements of changes in thebiological state of biological pathways that are likely to be involvedin the effects of the drug, the changes being in response to gradedperturbations of these pathways.

Aspects of the biological state of a cell, for example, thetranscriptional state, the translational state or the activity state,are measured in response to a plurality of strengths of drug exposure,preferably graded from drug absence to full drug effect. The collectionof these measurements, optionally graphically presented, are calledherein the “drug response”.

In some embodiments, the biological state of a cell can be moreadvantageously represented by cellular constituent sets. Id. Cellularconstituent sets are a groups of covarying cellular constituents. Forexample, genes with co-varying transcription are grouped into genesets.By a projection process described in detail in U.S. patent applicationSer. No. 09/179,569, previously incorporated by reference, cellularconstituent values can be converted into cellular constituent setvalues, e.g., geneset values. The resulting profile of cellularconstituent set values have a smaller dimension and a low measurementerrors than the original profile of cellular constituents. Throughoutthis application, in places where cellular constituents are used torepresent cellular state or to measure drug pathway activities, cellularconstituent set values (e.g., geneset values) may be more advantagouslyused in the place of cellular constituent sets. For example, drugresponses can be represented by the change in cellular constituent setvalues.

Cellular constituents varying in the drug response are compared tocellular constituents varying in the pathway responses in order to findthat biological pathway, or combination of biological pathways, whichmatches all or substantially all of the drug response. Substantially allof a drug response is matched by pathway responses when most of thecellular constituents varying in the drug response are found to vary ina similar fashion in one or more of the pathway responses. Preferably,at least 75% of the cellular constituents varying in the drug responsecan be matched, more preferably at least 90% can be so matched, and evenmore preferably at least 95% can be so matched. Cellular constituentsvary in a similar fashion in two responses when both sets of data arelikely to be the same in view of experimental error.

In a preferred embodiment, comparison of a drug response with one ormore pathway responses is performed by a method in which an objectivemeasure of differences between the measured drug response and a modeldrug response is minimized. The model drug response is constructed bycombining the pathway responses of those pathways considered likely tobe involved in the effects of the drug. If a particular cellularconstituent varies in only one pathway response, the variation of thatcellular constituent in the model drug response is the variation in thatone pathway response. If a particular cellular constituent varies in twoor more pathway responses, the variation of that cellular constituent inthe model drug response is a combination of the variation in the pathwayresponses. This combination can be performed additively or by anothernumerical combination.

Since the relation of the strength of the drug (described, for example,by the kinetic constants describing its actions) to the effectiveness ofthe graded pathway perturbation (described, for example, by arbitrarymeasures of a perturbation control parameter) is not known, anadjustable scaling is made between the intensity of the gradedperturbations for each pathway response that are combined in the modeldrug response and the graded drug exposures. The variations of thecellular constituents are combined together into the model drug responsewith adjustable scalings. The adjustable scaling for one pathway isusually independent of the scalings for the other pathways.

In one embodiment, the objective measure can be minimized by adjustingthe scaling of each pathway response in the model drug response and/orby varying the number or identity of biological pathways combined in themodel drug response. Varying the pathways combined in the model drugresponse can be simply achieved by setting the adjustable scalings inthe biological pathways not desired so that no variation in the cellularconstituents occurs. In a preferred embodiment, where the adjustablescalings are performed by linear transformation between the pathwayperturbation parameters and the drug exposure, minimization of theobjective measure can be performed by standard techniques of numericalanalysis. See, e.g., Press et al., 1996, Numerical Recipes in C, 2nd Ed.Cambridge Univ. Press, Ch. 10.; Branch et al., 1996, Matlab OptimizationToolbox User's Guide, Mathworks (Natick, Mass.). Also, the method ofnumerically combining variations of the same cellular constituent fromdifferent pathways can be varied. For example, multiplicativecross-product terms could be included which would represent, inter alia,multiplicative responses from multiple transcription factors comingtogether from different convergent pathways to form a transcriptioncomplex.

The pathways combined in the model drug response in order to representmeasured drug response in advance of minimization of the objectivefunction can be chosen in various ways. Most simply a large collectionof biological pathways covering many cellular functions can be combinedwith independently adjustable scalings; the objective measure minimized;and the combination of biological pathways best representing the drugresponse determined. A “compendium” of biological pathways is a set ofpathways which is substantially complete in the biological system usedfor the assay, or at least sufficiently complete to cover all pathwayslikely to be relevant for drug action. Preferably, the minimization ismade more efficient if the collection of pathways can be narrowed tothose likely to be involved in the action of the drug. Such narrowingcan be predicated on, for example, prior knowledge of drug effect andbiological pathway significance.

More preferably, pathways are selected that originate at particularcellular constituents, and advantageously, are also hierarchical(minimizing the muting effects of negative feedback loops or theamplifying effects of positive feedback loops). Most preferably, theoriginating cellular constituents are likely to be targets of the drugof interest, usually functionally active proteins. For example, given adrug of interest and a selection of potential targets in the cell,first, the biological pathways originating at each of the potentialtargets can be measured (as previously described in Section 5.1).Second, these pathways can be combined with independent scaling factors,the objective measure minimized, and the combination of pathways bestrepresenting the drug's action determined. Thereby, along withdetermination of the actual pathways involved in drug action, the actualtargets of the drug are also identified as the cellular constituentsfrom which the actual pathways originate.

After the pathways involved in drug action are determined, they can beconfirmed by the following additional methods of this invention.According to a first confirmation method, the significance of thepathways determined is decided based on statistical tests referencingthe minimum value computed from the objective measure. One preferredtest computes pathway representations as above with a plurality ofrandomizations of the drug response data in order to determine adistribution of minimum values of the objective measure. The statisticalsignificance of the minimum value of the objective measure actuallyobtained from the un-randomized drug response data can be judged againstthis distribution.

According to a second confirmation method, determined pathways can beconfirmed by making measurements of a cell simultaneously both exposedto the drug and also having one or more of the determined pathwaysperturbed. By perturbing drug exposed cells (or applying a drug toperturbed cells), verification can be obtained that the pathway is infact involved in the response of specific downstream genes and proteins.If the biological pathways perturbed are not involved in the action ofthe drug, the drug and the perturbations will produce independent,usually substantially additive, effects on the variation of cellularconstituents. If the biological pathways perturbed are indeed involvedin the action of the drug, the effects of the drug and the perturbationswill not be independent. The effects will interfere and the variation ofcellular constituents will saturate at values observed for either drugexposure or pathway perturbations alone.

The following paragraphs generally illustrate several of the methods ofthis invention with respect to FIG. 1 and FIGS. 2A-C. FIG. 1 illustratesdrug D that may act on a cell through three potential pathways. Pathways101 and 102 originate with proteins P1 and P2 and P3, respectively, andultimately influence the expression levels of the indicated genes,perhaps by influencing additional mediating cellular constituents. Thedetails of pathway 103 are not illustrated. The methods of thisinvention determine which of these three pathways, alone or in somecombination, explains the actual action of drug D on the cell

To make this determination, the methods of this invention attempt torepresent drug D's action on the cell, that is its drug response, by acombination of the pathway responses of pathways 101, 102, and 103. Thisrepresentation will be successful, and drug D's response will beadequately represented, for that combination of pathways which drug Dactually effects. If the observed response of drug D can be representedadequately by only one of the pathway responses, that pathway isidentified as being the only pathway of action for drug D.

In the case of pathways 101 and 102 which originate at proteins P1 andP2 and P3, respectively, the pathway responses can be directlydetermined by known perturbations of the abundance, or activity, or someother characteristic relevant for drug D's action, of the originatingproteins. For example, application of variable perturbation 104 changesa relevant characteristic of protein P1, thereby influencingcharacteristics of the other cellular constituents in pathway 101, forexample, the expression levels of genes G1, G2, and G3. Perturbation 104is capable of being applied in a graded fashion in order to generatepathway responses at a plurality of perturbation control values, fromthe native level of the characteristic of protein P1 perturbed to fullsaturation or inhibition of that characteristic. Similar knownperturbations can be made to protein P2 and the expression levels ofgenes G4, G5, and G6 measured.

Additionally, if the response of drug D on a cell can be represented aspathway responses generated by perturbing P1 or P2, one of skill on theart will appreciate that these P1 or P2 are thereby identified asprotein targets of drug D.

FIG. 2A illustrates a possible transcriptional response of a cell todrug D. The horizontal axis indexes the degree of drug exposure, forexample, the concentration of the drug in the cell's environment,ranging from no exposure at the value 0 to saturating exposure at thevalue 5. The vertical axis indexes the logarithm of the ratio of thegene expression on exposure to drug D to the gene expression in theabsence of drug D. Accordingly, the drug response curves all begin at 0in the absence of drug D, corresponding to an expression ratio of 1. Itis assumed for the purposes of this example that only genes G1, G2, andG3 of a cell significantly respond to exposure to drug D with theresponse indicated by the labeled response curves.

Although the gene response curves are presented for the purposes ofillustration as continuous curves, in an actual experimentallydetermined drug response, expression ratios are measured for only alimited set of discrete levels of drug exposure. In an actual case, thegraphical representation of a drug response would consist of expressionratios only at these discrete exposure levels. Preferably, the discretedrug exposure levels are chosen and positioned so that the steepestregions of the drug response curves are adequately sampled. Preferably,at least and more preferably or more exposure levels are positioned inthese regions of the response curves, where the drug response variesfrom the unexposed level to the saturating level.

Such response curves can be generated and measured by the methods ofSections 5.5. In particular, by employing technologies for geneexpression analysis in concert with the genome sequence of the yeast S.cerevisiae, such response curves can be experimentally generated fornearly all of the genes in that yeast. Although much of the descriptionof this invention is directed to measurement and modeling of geneexpression data, this invention is equally applicable to measurements ofother aspects of the biological state of a cell, such as proteinabundances or activities.

FIG. 2B illustrates a possible pathway response for pathway 101 (in FIG.1), which originates with protein P1 and involves the expression levelsof genes G1, G2, and G3, in response to perturbation 104 to originatingprotein P1. The horizontal axis in this figure indexes the strength ofperturbation 104 applied to P1, ranging from no perturbation of P1 atthe value 0 to saturating perturbation of P1 at the value 5.Perturbation 104 can be either inhibiting or activating protein P1 asthe case may be. As set out in more detail in Section 5.4, suchperturbation might be accomplished, inter alia, by transfection withvarying amounts of a gene expressing P1 in order to increase theabundance of P1, or by expression of P1 under the control of acontrollable promoter in turn controlled by a drug or small molecule, orby inhibition of P1 activity by exposure to a different drug of specificknown action against P1 . Similarly to FIG. 2A, the vertical axis inFIG. 2B indexes the logarithm of the ratio of the gene expression onexposure to perturbation 104 to the gene expression in the absence ofperturbation 104. The response of the expression levels of genes G1, G2,and G3, which are components of pathway 101 influenced by protein P1(whether directly or indirectly), are illustrated by the labeled curves.

Also similarly to FIG. 2A, although these pathway response curves areillustrated as continuous, in actual fact perturbation 104 to protein P1would be applied at a limited set of discrete values and the “curves”are actually expression ratio values at these discrete perturbationcontrol parameter values. Also preferably, the discrete perturbationvalues are chosen and positioned so that the steepest regions of thepathway response curves are adequately sampled, with at least and morepreferably or more perturbation control parameter values positioned inthe regions of the response curves where the responses vary from theunexposed level to the saturating level.

The drug and pathway response curves in FIGS. 2A and 2B illustrate thegenerally expected shape of such curves. This expected shape includes abelow threshold region at low drug exposure or perturbation controlparameter over which there is effectively no response of the cellularconstituents in the pathway. After this below threshold region, the drugor perturbation begins to be efficacious and the values ofcharacteristics of the cellular constituents are perturbed. The curve ofperturbed values is expected to usually have a monotonic increase ordecrease toward an asymptotic level at saturation beyond which nofurther change is observed. The response curves terminate in thissaturation region.

In fact, more complicated, non-monotonic response curve shapes arepossible and expected in some situations. For example, in the case wherethe drug or the perturbation has toxic effects, as toxicity sets inrising abundances of cellular constituents may start to fall and fallingabundances may start to fall even faster. Also, nonlinear and feedbackmechanisms known to be present in the biological systems may result innon-monotonic, multi-phasic responses. Such a response might firstincrease and then decrease with increasing perturbation amplitude ordrug exposure. For example, a drug or a perturbation may act on certaincellular constituents through two pathways with different thresholds andwith opposite effects to generate increasing then decreasing (or viceversa) responses. Although the methods of this invention are illustratedand primarily described with respect to monotonic response curves, suchas illustrated FIGS. 2A-B, as will be apparent to one of skill in theart from subsequent description, these methods are equally applicable tononmonotonic response curves.

Having measured drug and pathway responses, the problem of determiningthe pathways by which drug D (of FIG. 1) acts on a cell requiresmatching the drug response as a combination of pathway responses. FIG.2A illustrates how the abundances of genes G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, and G6vary in the drug response of drug D. Since these same genes vary in thedisjoint pathways originating at P1 and P2, it can be determinedaccording to the methods of this invention whether either of these twopathway is actually involved in the response of drug D.

According to the methods of this invention, these determinations aremade by inquiring whether the pathway response curves of the pathwaysoriginating at P1 and P2 can be transformed to match the drug responsecurves of FIG. 2A. Concerning only the pathway originating at proteinP1, the determination of whether this pathway is actually involved inthe action of drug D is met by attempting to transform the pathwayresponse curves of this pathway, illustrated in FIG. 2B, into the drugresponse curves for G1, G2, and G3, illustrated in FIG. 2A. The drugresponse curves for G4, G5, and G6 need not be considered here becausethe pathway originating at P1 does not affect these genes.

The transformation of the pathway response curves of FIG. 2B into thedrug response curves of FIG. 2A generally can have both a vertical and ahorizontal component. No vertical transformation of these responsecurves is expected in this example. The amplitudes of both sets ofresponse curves will be the same, since they both vary over the samerange, from 0, in a resting state without perturbation or drug exposure,to saturation, is a state where both drug and the perturbation havemaximally affected pathway 101. However, horizontal transformation islikely to be necessary. Because there is no reason for the valuesdefining the perturbation control, such as the exposure value of a viraltransfection vector expressing P1, or controllable promoter of P1expression, or another drug of specific known action on P1, to be thesame as the values defining exposure to drug D under study, the drug andpathway response curves must be horizontally transformed in order toascertain any possible match. Since the curves for G1, G2, and G3 inFIG. 2B have the same general shape as the corresponding curves in FIG.2A, such a horizontally transformation is likely to be possible in thiscase.

Finding a horizontal transformation, according to this invention,proceeds by parameterization of a class of possible transformations.Then, optimum values of the parameters are sought that will make thepathway response explain the drug response as closely as possible. Apreferable and simple class of transformations are linear scaling fromvalues of the perturbation control parameter to values of the drugexposure, which are simply parameterized by the degree of stretch orshrinkage. Optimum values of the linear stretch can then be found bystandard means, such as by minimization of an objective measure of thedifference of the pathway and drug response curves.

FIG. 2C sets forth an exemplary illustration of finding an optimumlinear scaling parameter. The vertical axis of the graph of this figureindexes the average correlation value computed between the pathwayresponse curves G1, G2, and G3 of FIG. 2B and the drug response curvesG1, G2, and G3, respectively, of FIG. 2A. It is well known in the artthat, when two curves are identical, they will have a perfectcorrelation of 1.0. The horizontal axis indexes possible linear scalingparameters from 0 to 10. In this example, a perfect correlation value of1.0 occurs at a scaling parameter of 2. The pathway response curves ofFIG. 2B can be transformed with a linear scaling of 2 to fully match thedrug response curves of FIG. 2A. Therefore, it can be concluded that thepathway originating at P1 is one of the pathways of action of drug D.

In order to determine whether the entire action of drug D can beexplained by the pathways originating at P1 and P2, according to thisinvention the sum (the pathways are disjoint) of the both pathwayresponses (the response of the pathway originating at P2 is notillustrated) can be transformed into the response curves of all sixgenes to drug D.

For some embodiments of the invention, the response data may beinterpolated. This interpolation is preferably accomplished either byspline fitting or by model-fitting. In spline fitting, the drug andpathway response data are interpolated by summing products of anappropriate spline interpolation function, S, multiplied by the measureddata values, as illustrated by the following equations. $\begin{matrix}\begin{matrix}{{R_{i,k}(u)} = {\sum\limits_{1}{{S\left( {u - p_{i,1}} \right)}{R_{i,k}\left( p_{i,1} \right)}}}} \\{{D_{k}(u)} = {\sum\limits_{1}{{S\left( {u - t_{1}} \right)}{D_{k}\left( t_{1} \right)}}}}\end{matrix} & (1)\end{matrix}$

The variable “u” refers to an arbitrary value of the drug exposure levelor the perturbation control parameter at which the drug response dataand the pathway response data, respectively, are to be evaluated. Ingeneral, S may be any smooth (at least piece-wise continuous) functionof limited support having a width characteristic of the structureexpected in the response functions. An exemplary width can be chosen tobe the distance over which the response function being interpolatedrises from 10% to 90% of its asymptotic value. Different S functions maybe appropriate for the drug and the pathway response data, and even forthe response data of different pathways. Exemplary S functions includelinear and Gaussian interpolation.

In model fitting, the drug and pathway responses are interpolated byapproximating each by a single parameterized function. An exemplarymodel-fitting function appropriate for approximating transcriptionalstate data is the Hill function, which has adjustable parameters a, u₀,and n. $\begin{matrix}{{H(u)} = \frac{{a\left( {u/u_{0}} \right)}^{n}}{1 + \left( {u/u_{0}} \right)^{n}}} & (2)\end{matrix}$

The adjustable parameters are selected independently for each cellularconstituent of the drug response and for each cellular constituent ofthe pathway response. Preferably, the adjustable parameters are selectedso that for each cellular constituent of each pathway response the sumof the squares of the distances of H(p_(i,l)) from R_(i,k)(P_(i,l)) isminimized, and so that for each cellular constituent of the drugresponse the sum of the squares of the distances of H(t_(l)) fromD_(k)(t_(l)) is minimized. This preferable parameter adjustment methodis known in the art as a least squares fit of H( ) to R_(i,k)( ) or toD_(k)( ). Other possible model functions are based on polynomialfitting, for example by various known classes of polynomials.

Model fitting with a Hill function is illustrated with respect to FIGS.3 and 4. As discussed, FIG. 3 illustrates an example of a pathwayperturbed by methotrexate and identified by measurement. This figureillustrates the mRNA expression levels of genes of the yeast S.cerevisiae that, of the approximately 6000 genes in the genome of thisyeast, had the largest expression changes in response to six differentexposure levels of methotrexate. FIG. 4 illustrates a fit of the pathwayresponse of one of these gene expression levels by a Hill function. Inparticular, the yeast gene YOL031C was fit by a Hill function withparameters n=2, a=−0.61, and log₁₀(u₀)=1.26 selected by the previouslydescribed least squares method.

Since all of the 30 genes with largest responses behaved monotonically,i.e., none of the responses decreased significantly from its maximumamplitude (or increased significantly from its minimum amplitude) withincreasing drug exposure, the Hill function is an appropriate modelfitting function. For non-monotonic behavior it would not be.

After selection of a response data interpolation method, the last stepprior to drug response data fitting, step 503, is the selection of ascaling transformation, along with any necessary parameters, which willrelate the biological pathway responses to the drug responses. Ingeneral, a scaling transformation may need to scale vertically as wellas horizontally. Vertical scalings may be necessary to relate thevarious measurements of the relevant characteristics of each cellularconstituent made in acquiring the response data. For example, suchmeasurements might be of abundances of mRNA species or activities ofproteins. Where these measurements are made in commensurate units,vertical scalings are needed merely to relate the various units ofmeasurement. Alternatively, where both drug and pathway measurements aremade across a range of parameters from native levels to full saturation,as is preferable, these measurements can be scaled, for example, by thesaturation values. Such scaling obviates the need for any verticalscaling. In this case, for example, where pathway responses areinterpolated by fitting with a Hill function, the value of the parameter“a” for all response data will be substantially equal to 1. In thefollowing, it is assumed that any necessary vertical scaling bysaturation values has been done and that all pathway data vary betweencommon native level and saturation values.

The analytic embodiments of the Pathway decomposition methods include,first, embodiments for representing drug response as a combination ofpathway responses, and second, embodiments for assessing the statisticalsignificance and verifying the results of the representation found.

FIG. 5 sets out a flow chart for a preferred embodiment of the methodsof this invention. This embodiment determines a representative drugresponse data 510 for a particular drug in terms of pathway responsedata 511 for one or more pathways along with significance assessment andverification of the representation determined.

In other embodiments of this invention, certain steps illustrated inFIG. 5 may be omitted or performed in orders other than as illustrated.For example, in certain embodiments candidate pathway selection, step501, and scaling parameterization selection, step 502, can be performedonce for the analysis of the response data from several, preferablyrelated, drugs and need not be performed for each drug analysisseparately. Also in particular embodiments, pathway significanceassignment and verification may not be performed, and accordingly, oneor more of steps 505 and 506, step 507, or step 508 may be omitted.

The representation of drug response data in terms of pathway responsedata preferably begins at step 501 with the selection of one or morecandidate biological pathways with which to represent drug response datafor a drug of interest. As discussed, the pathways preferably employedare those that originate at one or more cellular constituents, morepreferably at constituents that are proteins likely to be targets of thedrug of interest. Most preferably, the candidate pathways originate atsingle cellular constituents that are likely to be targets of the drugof interest.

Where candidate drug targets are not known, single pathways can bechosen from among available pathways, perhaps stored in a compendium ofpathways, and tested for significance in representing the drug responsedata according to the following steps illustrated in FIG. 5. Thosepathways individually found to have significance in representing drugresponse data can then be employed combined, and the steps of FIG. 5performed in order to determine the best pathway combination forrepresenting drug action. A compendium of pathways is preferablysubstantially complete in the biological system used for the assay (inthat it includes substantially all biological pathways in that system),or at least includes substantially all pathways likely to be involved indrug action.

Pathway response data are measured in step 511 for the pathways selectedin step 501. In many cases, for example, where a pathway has beendefined by measurement, response data will already have been measuredfor perturbations to the selected pathways. In other cases, thisresponse data must be measured prior to the succeeding steps of thisinvention. As described above, response data for a pathway includesmeasurements of relative changes in relevant characteristics of thecellular constituents present in the pathway for a plurality of controllevels of a perturbation to the pathway. For example, where the pathwayis defined by gene expression levels originating at a proteinconstituent, the activity of the originating protein can be perturbed ina graded manner and the resulting ratios (or logarithms of these ratios)of native to perturbed gene expression levels are measured. Theperturbation control levels are preferably chosen so that five or more,or more preferably ten or more, perturbation control levels are presentin the region where the characteristics of the cellular constituentsrapidly change from native levels to saturation levels.

In the following, the variable “p” refers generally to perturbationcontrol levels, and the variable “R” refers generally to the pathwayresponse data. In detail, the l'th perturbation control level in thei'th biological pathway is referred to as “p_(i,l)”. The pathwayresponse for the k'th cellular constituent in the i'th pathway isR_(i,k). Therefore, R_(i,k)(P_(i,l)) is the response of the k'thcellular constituent in the i'th pathway at the l'th level of theperturbation control parameter.

Similarly, drug response data are obtained in step 510, and must bemeasured if not already available. As described above, these data areobtained by measuring changes in characteristics of cellularconstituents at a plurality of levels of drug exposure (also calledherein “levels of drug titration”). As with pathway response data, thedrug exposure levels (or “drug titrations”) are preferably chosen sothat five or more, or more preferably ten or more, exposure values arepresent in the region where the characteristics of the cellularconstituents rapidly change from native levels to saturation exposurelevels.

In the following, the variable “t” is used to refer generally to drugexposure (or “titration”) levels, and the variable “D” refers generallyto the drug response data. In detail, the l'th measured drug exposurelevel is referred to as “t_(l)”. The drug response for the k'th cellularconstituent is D_(k). Therefore, D_(k)(t_(l)) is the drug response ofthe k'th cellular constituent at the l'th level of drug exposure.

In the subsequent steps of these methods, in particular in step 504,values of the drug response data and the pathway response data may beneeded at values of the drug exposure or perturbation control parameterwhich may not have been measured. This result follows from the fact thatthe measured drug exposure levels and pathway perturbation controlparameters are not necessarily related. That is, for a particular 1, thevariables t, and P_(i,l), for the various pathways, i, have no a priorirelationship. Accordingly, it is necessary in step 502 to provide forinterpolating of the various response data to obtain needed values. Thisinterpolation method is preferably accomplished either by spline fittingor by model-fitting discussed above. The selection of an interpolationmethod and any necessary parameters are accomplished in step 502.

In general, horizontal scaling is expected to be necessary. As discussedabove such scaling is necessary because values of the perturbationcontrol parameters for the various candidate biological pathways arelikely not to cause saturation responses at the same numericalperturbation control values nor at the same numerical value as thesaturation response of the drug exposure. For example, the pathwayperturbations may act according to such entirely different mechanisms asthe titration of a viral transfection vector expressing a protein fromwhich a pathway originates, or the control parameter of a controllablepromoter controlling expression of an originating protein, or theexposure level of a drug of specific known action on an originatingprotein. The saturating control values of these mechanisms, and indeedtheir kinetic characteristics, are likely to be all unrelated. All ofthese mechanisms may be different from the action of the drug ofinterest. For example, where perturbation action on a cellularconstituent from which a pathway originates can be modeled as a Hillfunction, there is no reason that the various “u₀” parameters will bethe same.

The preferred horizontal scaling transformation is a lineartransformation of the drug exposure level into correspondingperturbation control parameters. An exemplary expression of such atransformation follows.

 P_(i,l)=α_(i)t_(l)+β_(i)  (3)

Eqn. 3 provides the perturbation control value in the i'th pathwaycorresponding to the l'th drug exposure level. The linear scalingconstants are α_(i) and β_(i). Each pathway is characterized by one setof scaling parameters. Generally, β_(i) will be 0 since both drugexposure and perturbation control values begin with zero. In essence,α_(i) represents a ratio of the strengths of the particular pathwayperturbation to the drug of interest. For example, where the responsedata can be modeled as Hill functions, α_(i) is the ratio of the u₀parameters of the drug of interest to that of the particular pathway.

More general horizontal scaling transformations are characterized byadditional parameters. Flexible scaling transformations are possiblewith a number of parameters small enough, even though nonlinear, to beusefully employed in the minimization procedure of step 504. Multiplescaling parameters for the i'th pathway are represented herein by“α_(i)”. Another example of a scaling transformation is a polynomialexpansion generalizing the linear transformation of Eqn 3. A simpleexample of a more general scaling transformation is the previouslydescribed Hill function employed according to the following equation.$\begin{matrix}{p_{i,l} = \frac{{\alpha_{i}\left( {t_{l}/\mu_{i}} \right)}^{n_{i}}}{1 + \left( {t_{l}/\mu_{i}} \right)^{n_{i}}}} & (4)\end{matrix}$

Again, Eqn. 3 provides the perturbation control value in the i'thpathway corresponding to the l'th drug exposure level and isparameterized for each pathway by the three parameters α_(i), μ_(i), andn_(i). The Hill function scaling is more general at least in that itreduces to a linear scaling when n_(i) is 1 and t_(i) is much less thanμ_(i).

Step 504 is the central step of the methods of this invention in whichthe drug response is represented as a combination of appropriatelyscaled pathway responses. The preferred representation of the drugresponse is as a scaled linear combination of the pathway responses.Such a representation is particularly useful when the cellularconstituents affected by one pathway are either unaffected by the otherpathways, or have linearly additive effects if multiple pathwaysconverge on the same cellular constituent, such as an mRNA or proteinabundance. Since the convergence or overlap of pathways is most likelyfar downstream of the primary targets, where the influences havebranched out to include many genes, the effects of multiple pathways aremore likely to accidentally act as independent and additive effects. Ifthe effects converged through a new cellular constituent in the twopathways, independence and additivity is less likely. In such cases,multiplicative cross-product terms could be included which wouldrepresent, inter alia, multiplicative responses of a cellularconstituent resulting from convergence of multiple pathways at thatcellular constituent. Even in the latter case and in other cases wherelinear additivity does not hold, errors introduced by the linearadditivity can be corrected with the techniques of Section 5.3.1.

Therefore, preferably, the drug response data is represented in terms ofthe pathway response data according to the following equation.$\begin{matrix}{{{{D_{k}\left( t_{1} \right)} \cong {\sum\limits_{i}{R_{i,k}\left( {\alpha_{i},t_{1}} \right)}}};{k = 1}},{K;{l = 1}},L} & (5)\end{matrix}$

Eqn. 5 represents the model drug response of the k'th cellularconstituent at the l'th level of drug exposure in terms of the sum ofpathway responses for the k'th cellular constituent scaled according tothe selected transformation parameterized by the α_(i). It is understoodthat in general, here and subsequently, that the R_(i,k)( ) areinterpolated according to the methods of step 502, since it is rarelythe case that measurements will have been made at the perturbationcontrol values given by the scaled drug exposure levels. In cases wheremultiplicative cross-product terms are included (for example, in thecases previously described) Eqn. 5 would also include terms such asR_(i,l)(α_(i),t_(l))R_(i,l)(α_(i)t_(l)).

Sufficiently accurate solutions of this latter equation can be obtainedby numerical approximation methods known in the art. These solutiondetermine the best scaling transformation so that the model drugresponse matches the drug response as closely as possible. Preferredmethods provide a numerical indication (herein referred to as a“residual”) of the degree to which Eqn. 5 is not perfectly satisfied.According to a preferred method, pathway scaling parameters can bedetermined from the minimization of the related least squaresapproximation problem. $\begin{matrix}{\min\limits_{\{\alpha_{i}\}}\left\{ {\sum\limits_{k}{\sum\limits_{l}{{{D_{k}\left( t_{1} \right)} - {\sum\limits_{i}{R_{i,k}\left( {\alpha_{i};t_{1}} \right)}}}}^{2}}} \right\}} & (6)\end{matrix}$

In Eqn. 6, the inner sum of the R_(i,k) is over all interpolated pathwayresponses scaled according to the parameters α_(i) to correspond to thedrug exposure level t_(l). The parameters α_(i) for each biologicalpathway are generally a set of few parameters, such as from 1-5parameters, defining the scaling transformation. The absolute square ofthe difference of this sum and the drug response at t_(l) is in turnsummed over all drug exposure levels, indexed by “1”, and over allcellular constituents in the drug response or in the biologicalpathways, indexed by “k”. The representation of the drug response interms of the biological pathways is determined from the minimization ofthis latter sum with respect to the scaling transformation parametersfor each pathway, the {α_(i)}. The minimum value of this sum provides anumerical indication of the degree to which Eqn. 5 is satisfied, thatis, the residual.

For linear scale transformations, Eqn. 6 has the following simpler form.$\begin{matrix}{\min\limits_{\{\alpha_{i}\}}\left\{ {\sum\limits_{k}{\sum\limits_{l}{{{D_{k}\left( t_{1} \right)} - {\sum\limits_{i}{R_{i,k}\left( {\alpha_{i}t_{1}} \right)}}}}^{2}}} \right\}} & (7)\end{matrix}$

In Eqn. 7, each α_(i) is a single scaling constant for each biologicalpathway. Naturally, each α_(i) depends on the units chosen for the drugexposure and those chosen for the perturbation control value as well ason the actual physical relation between the potency of the drug and thepotency of the perturbation method.

Minimization of least squares Eqns. 6 or 7 is performed using any of themany available numerical methods. See, e.g., Press et al., 1996,Numerical Recipes in C, 2nd Ed. Cambridge Univ. Press, Chs. 10, 14.;Branch et al., 1996, Matlab Optimization Toolbox User's Guide, Mathworks(Natick, Mass.). A preferred method is the Levenberg-Marquandt method(described in Press at al., Section 14.4). Since there are K genes, andL level of drug exposure, Eqns. 6 or 7 represent KL individualequations. The number of unknowns is equal to the number of hypothesizedpathways times the number of scaling parameters per pathway. In the caseof linear scaling, the number of scaling parameters equals the number ofpathways. Typically, the number KL is much larger than the number ofscaling parameters so that the least squares problem is considerablyover-determined. Over-determination is advantageous in that it makes thesolution robust i.e., insensitive to measurement errors in individualcellular constituent responses.

An alternative to the least-squares procedure outlined in Eqns. 6 and 7for solving Eqn. 5 is to maximize the normalized correlation between themodel drug response and the measured drug response. This procedure isclosely related mathematically to the least squares procedure. Accordingto this procedure the α_(i) are determined from the solution to Eqn. 8.$\begin{matrix}{\max\limits_{\{\alpha_{i}\}}\left\{ \frac{\sum\limits_{k}{{\rho_{k}\left( \alpha_{i} \right)}A_{Dk}A_{Rk}}}{\left( {\sum\limits_{k}{\left( A_{Dk} \right)^{2}{\sum\limits_{k^{\prime}}\left( A_{{Rk}^{\prime}} \right)^{2}}}} \right)^{1/2}} \right\}} & (8)\end{matrix}$

In this equation, ρ_(k)(α_(i)) is the correlation coefficient betweenthe drug response data for the k'th cellular constituent and the modelpathway response for the k'th cellular constituent. In detail, thiscorrelation coefficient is given by Eqn. 9. $\begin{matrix}{{\rho_{k}\left( \alpha_{i} \right)} = \frac{\sum\limits_{l}{{D_{k}\left( t_{l} \right)}\left( {\sum\limits_{i}{R_{i,k}\left( {\alpha_{i}t_{l}} \right)}} \right)}}{\left( {\sum\limits_{m}{\left( {D_{k}\left( t_{m} \right)} \right)^{2}{\sum\limits_{n}{\sum\limits_{i}\left( {R_{ik}\left( {\alpha_{i}t_{n}} \right)} \right)^{2}}}}} \right)^{1/2}}} & (9)\end{matrix}$

In Eqn. 9, the inner sum (over i) represents the model drug response forthe k'th cellular constituent. The product of the model and measureddrug responses are summed over all levels of drug exposure, and the sumis normalized by the root-mean-square (also called herein “RMS”) valuesof the these responses to give the correlation coefficients. Returningto Eqn. 8, the values of the correlation coefficient are preferablynormalized by the amplitudes A_(Dk) and A_(Rk), which are the responseamplitudes for the measured and model drug responses for the k'thcellular constituents. These amplitudes are chosen to be RMS values ofthe measured and model drug responses over all levels of drug exposure.This normalization gives greater weight to cellular constituents withlarger amplitude responses, while ensuring that perfect correlationgives a value of unity.

Alternatively and less preferably, the correlation coefficients can beunnormalized, in which case the amplitudes in Eqn. 8 are taken to beunity. Also, instead of the correlation coefficients, the negative ofthe correlation coefficients can be used, in which case the expressionof Eqn. 8 is minimized (instead of maximized) to find the best scaling;parameters.

Eqns. 8 and 9 can be solved by the methods described in the case of theleast squares methods. It will be clear to those skilled in the art thatthe above fitting approach is equivalent to minimizing the negativevalue of Eqn. 8.

In both the least squares and the correlation methods, the summation ofthe pathway responses over the transformed drug exposure levels may leadto values outside of the measured interval of perturbation controlparameters. This is because the scaling parameters, α_(i), can besubstantially greater or less than unity. In order to avoidextrapolation of measured values, the sums in both cases (in Eqns. 6 and8) are extended only over the interval in which there is measured data.

When drug responses from two different drugs are being compared, thesteps outlined above in this section can be performed to generate acorrelation coefficient, or, alternatively, a least squares residual,which is a measure of similarity of the effects of the two drugs. Insuch an embodiment, only one response pathway is scaled to fit the drugresponse data. Thus, in this particular embodiment the response R of thesecond “perturbation” drug is compared to the response data of the firstdrug D accordinrg to Eqn. 5, above, where K=1.

Following determination of a representation of the drug response as acombination of pathway responses, it is preferable, although optional,to assign a statistical significance to the pathway combinationdetermined in step 506 and to verify the pathways determined to besignificant in step 507.

Assessing Statistical Significance

Concerning step 506, the statistical significance of a pathwaycombination is determined by comparing the value of the minimum residualdetermined from the solution of Eqn. 5 to an expected probabilitydistribution of residuals. The less likely the minimum residual is interms of such a distribution, the more significant is the determinedpathway combination. In the case of the correlation minimization method,the same methods can be applied to the maximum found in Eqn. 8. Inparticular, an expected distribution of this maximums can be found (asdescribed below), and the significance of the actually obtained maximumdetermined from this distribution.

An expected probability distribution of residuals can be estimated byany method known in the art. Typically, this distribution is estimatedanalytically based on certain a priori assumptions concerning inputprobability distributions. Since such analytic estimation is difficultin this case, it is preferable to estimate the residual distribution bymodeling based on a method described by Fisher. See, e.g., Conover, 2nded. 1980, Practical Nonparametric Statistics, John Wiley. This methodsprovides an empirical residual distribution by taking permutations orrandom subsets of the input data. In detail, here the input can bepermuted with respect to the levels of drug exposure.

According to the preferred method, a residual distribution isconstructed by repetitively solving Eqn. 5 with randomized input dataand accumulating the residuals to form the empirical residualdistribution. Thereby, the constructed empirical residual distributionarises from random data that has the same population statistics as theactual data. In detail, first, either the drug response data or thepathway response data (but not both) are randomized in step 505 withrespect to the drug exposure levels or the perturbation controlparameters, respectively. This randomization transformation isrepresented by the following transformation.

D_(k)(t_(l))←D_(k)(t_(II(l)))

R_(i,k)(P_(i,l))←R_(i,k)(P_(i,II(l)))  (10)

In Eqn. 10, II represents a permutation independently chosen for eachcellular constituent. Either the drug response or the each pathwayresponse (but not both) is randomized according to Eqn. 10. Accordingly,the randomized drug or pathway response data are derived from themeasured data by independent permutation of the measurement points.Second, Eqn. 5 is then solved by the chosen numerical approximationtechnique in step 504 and the value of the resulting residual saved.These steps are repeated for enough randomizations to construct asufficiently significant expected probability distribution of residuals.In order to obtain confidence levels of 99% or better (i.e., a P-valueless than 0.01), then more than 100 randomizations are needed.

Having constructed the empirical residual distribution, in step 506, theactually determined residual is compared to the constructed distributionand its probability determined in view of that distribution. Thisprobability is the significance assigned to the pathway. In other words,the statistical significance of any fit of a combination of pathways tothe drug response is given in the preferred embodiment by the smallnessof the probability value that randomized data are fit better by theassumed combination of pathways than the actual data.

In some cases, the pathway combination initially chosen in step 501 hasadequate significance. For example, this is so if the pathwaycombination has at least the standard 95% probability threshold commonlyused in medical sciences. If so, then this initial pathway combinationcan be verified in step 507 and cellular components assigned toindividual biological pathways in step 508. In other cases, anacceptable significance threshold will not be met at first. If so, then,as indicated by arrow 512, it can be advantageous to return to step 501and select a new set of candidate pathways in order to find a setmeeting the chosen threshold standard of significance.

Accordingly, the assigned significance provides an objective method forassigning significance values and choosing between pathway combinations.This objective method of assigning significance allows meaningfulidentification of pathways from a large set of possible pathways likelyto be involved in the action of a drug of interest, and provides anobjective basis for halting the search for the additional pathways whenthe model drug response (possibly combining a plurality of pathways)attains sufficient objective significance.

In an alternative use of the significance as determined above, a singlecandidate pathway may be tested for significance according to twodifferent approaches. In a first approach, the model drug response istaken to involve only that candidate pathway, and the pathway responsedata along that pathway are compared to the drug response data bycorrelation or least-squares residual (as described in Section 5.3.1).The significance of the fit, as determined by the randomization methodsabove, is compared to a threshold, such as the 95% threshold standard inthe medical sciences, and the candidate pathway is taken to be a pathwayof drug action if the significance is greater than that threshold.

In a second approach, the model drug response is assumed to involvemultiple pathways, including the candidate pathway of interest. Thepathway response data are then selectively randomized by randomizingonly the pathway data for the candidate pathway according to Eqn. 10.The significance of the model drug response against this selectivelyrandomized data is assessed by the previous methods. If this lattersignificance is significantly less than the former significance of theactual data, then the candidate pathway is taken to have significantlyimproved the model drug response. In that case, the pathway is likely tobe a pathway of action of the drug of interest.

Verifying Pathway Combinations

Concerning next step 507, the representation of a drug response in termsof pathway responses can be independently verified by the preferred, butoptional, steps described in this subsection. In the previous stepsofthis invention ( steps 510 and 511), a biological system was perturbedeither by drug exposure or by perturbations of selected pathways, butnot by both drug exposure and pathway perturbations. In steps 504 and506, the results of drug exposure were fit by a combination of theresults of selected pathway perturbations, and then the statisticalsignificance of this fit was estimated. Now in step 507, simultaneousdrug exposure and perturbation of the significant pathways determined instep 504 are used to verify the that these pathways are indeed theactual pathways of drug action.

Before describing the analytic details of pathway verification, theadvantages of simultaneous drug exposure and pathway perturbation areexemplified with respect to the situation illustrated in FIG. 6. In FIG.6., the expression of genes G_(k) (for example transcription statemeasurements of mRNA abundances) are affected by two pathways, oneoriginating at protein P1 and the other at protein Px. Drug D is assumedto act on genes G_(k) either by inhibiting P1 or by inhibiting Px. Ifthe inhibitory perturbations to the two pathways produce similarresponses in the genes G_(k), then even if drug D acts only byinhibiting Px, its drug response will be well fit in step 504 byinhibitory perturbation 601 to the pathway originating at P1 , and thispathway may be incorrectly identified as being the likely pathway ofaction of drug D. This error can be remedied by simultaneous exposure todrug D and inhibition of P1 or of Px. Exposure to drug D and inhibitionof P1 will not result in a changed drug response, since the drugresponse is in fact mediated via Px. However, exposure to drug D andinhibition of Px will result in a changed drug response, since both thedrug and the perturbation now act at Px. The different responses tosimultaneous drug exposure and pathway perturbation in these two casesallow the correct pathway of action of drug D to be unambiguouslyidentified.

The general description of verification step 507 begins, first, withconsideration of the case where only one pathway is involved inrepresenting the drug response, and follows with consideration of thegeneral case of multiple pathways. In the following, as previously,D_(k)(t_(l)) refers to the response of the k'th cellular constituent tothe l'th level of drug exposure, and R_(i,k)(P_(i,l)) refers to theresponse of the k'th cellular constituent in the i'th pathway inresponse to the l'th level of the appropriate perturbation controlparameter. Further, the variable DR refers to the results of thecombined exposure of the biological system to both the drug and to apathway perturbation. In detail, DR_(i,k)(P_(i,l),t_(m)) refers to theresponse of the k'th cellular constituent in the i'th pathway inresponse to the i'th level of the appropriate perturbation controlparameter and to the m'th level of drug exposure.

In the case of a single pathway of drug action, if the drug indeed actson that pathway then the combined response, DR, is given by thefollowing.

DR_(i,t)(P_(i,l)t_(m))=R_(i,k) (P_(i,l)+α_(i)t_(m))  (11)

where α_(i) is the best scaling parameter determined for this pathway. Alinear scaling is assumed here; adaptation to more general scalingtransformations is apparent from the preceding description. DR has theforegoing form because, in this case, both the drug and the perturbationact on the same constituents of the pathway, in particular on theiroriginating constituents, and the response of the pathway is due to thesummed effect.

The behavior of Eqn. 11 is illustrated in FIG. 7A, where, for purposesof example only, D and R have been modeled by the Hill function.Characteristically, the function DR in this case saturates atsubstantially the same values for large drug exposure (drug“titrations”), near asterisk 701, for large perturbation, near asterisk702, and for the combination of large drug exposure and largeperturbations, near open circle 703.

If, instead, the drug acts on a different pathway, not on the i'thpathway, then the combined response, DR, is given by the following.

DR_(i,k)(P_(i,l)t_(m))R_(i,k)(P_(i,l))+D_(k)(P_(i,l))+D_(k)(t_(m))  (12)

The response has this form in this case because the drug acts only oncellular constituents outside of the i'th pathway. Since the pathwayperturbation is limited to cellular constituents in the i'th pathway, itacts independently of the drug. Consequently, the action of the drug andthe perturbation are independent and their effects are additive oncellular constituents. (The effects may be combined as needed accordingto the other combination functions discussed in Section 5.2)

The behavior of Eqn. 12 (assuming α_(i) equals 1) is illustrated in FIG.7B, where, for purposes of example only, D and R have again been modeledby the Hill function. In this case, the function DR saturates atsubstantially the same values for large drug exposure (drug“titrations”), near asterisk 704, and for large perturbation, nearasterisk 705. But for the combination of large drug exposure and largeperturbations, this function reaches substantially higher values nearopen circle 706 than at either asterisks 704 or 705, where only the drugexposure or the perturbation alone is saturating.

Clearly, it is possible to distinguish the cases represented by FIGS. 7Aand 7B by performing experiments for verification conditions where boththe drug exposure and the pathway perturbation are simultaneouslypresent. Such experiments are preferably at drug exposure andperturbation values represented by the open circles in FIGS. 7A and 7B,and most preferably at open circles 703 and 706. Less preferably, theseexperiments are performed at values in the interior of the surfacesillustrated in these figures, especially in the region bounded by linesbetween asterisks 701 and 702 and open circle 703 in FIG. 7A, and in theregion bounded by lines between asterisks 703 and 704 and open circle705 in FIG. 7B. It is also clear that it would not be possible todistinguish these cases solely by performing experiments in which onlyone of the drug exposure or perturbation control values are non-zero.The curves in FIG. 7A between asterisk 710 and either asterisk 701 orasterisk 702 are substantially the same as the curves in FIG. 7B betweenasterisk 711 and either asterisk 704 or asterisk 705.

In summary, the identification of the i'th pathway as the pathway ofdrug action is verified if experimental results more closely resembleFIG. 7A than FIG. 7B.

Considering the case of multiple pathway in general,TR_(k)(P_(i,l),t_(m)) refers to the total response of the k'th cellularconstituent in response to the l'th level of the appropriateperturbation control parameter in the i'th pathway and to the m'th levelof drug exposure. TR is given by the following equation if the drug actsthrough the indicated pathways. $\begin{matrix}{{{TR}_{k}\left( {p_{i,l},t_{m}} \right)} = {{\sum\limits_{i}{{DR}_{i,k}\left( {p_{i,l},t_{m}} \right)}} = {\sum\limits_{i}{R_{i,k}\left( {p_{i,l} + {\alpha_{i}t_{m}}} \right)}}}} & (13)\end{matrix}$

TR is given by the following equation if the drug does not act throughthe indicated pathways. $\begin{matrix}{{{TR}\left( {p_{i,l},t_{m}} \right)} = {{\sum\limits_{i}{{DR}_{i,k}\left( {p_{i,l},t_{m}} \right)}} = {\sum\limits_{i}\left( {{R_{i,k}\left( p_{i,l} \right)} + {D_{k}\left( t_{m} \right)}} \right)}}} & (14)\end{matrix}$

An objective choice between these two possibilities can be made in amanner similar to the statistical confidence estimation method describedin the previous subsection. Values for TR_(k)(P_(i,l),t_(m)), theleft-hand side of Eqns. 13 and 14, are experimentally determined forvarious preferred verification conditions, and values for the right-handside are computed from the measurements of the drug response and thepathway responses in steps 510 and 511 and from the determination of theoptimum scaling parameters in step 504. The residuals for theseequations, that is the sum of the squares of the differences of theleft- and right-hand sides, are then computed. Without more, thealternative with the lesser residual is the objective choice.

The statistical significance of the residuals can be estimated by,first, estimating a probability distribution of residuals. The estimatedresidual probability distribution is determined by repeatedlyrandomizing the right hand sides of Eqns. 13 and 14 with respect to theperturbation control parameter index and the drug exposure index andthen recomputing the residuals. The statistical significance of theactual residuals are then determined with respect to this modelprobability distribution.

Typically, only a small number of verification conditions are needed toconfirm with significance the existence of a pathway which wasdetermined to be significant in step 506.

In final optional step 508, after drug responses have been representedas a combination of pathway responses in step 504 and best-fit scalingparameters have been accordingly determined, each affected cellularconstituent can be assigned to the pathway with which its drug responseis most correlated. Optionally, the pathways have also been declaredsignificant in step 506 based, for example, on a significance threshold,such as the standard 95% probability threshold often used in the medicalsciences. For the k'th cellular constituent its drug response,D_(k)(t_(l)), is correlated with the individual response of thatconstituent in the response data of each pathway. $\begin{matrix}\begin{matrix}{\rho_{i,k} = {{corr}\left( {{D_{k}\left( t_{l} \right)}{R_{i,k}\left( {\alpha_{i}t_{l}} \right)}} \right)}} \\{= \frac{\sum\limits_{l}{{D_{k}\left( t_{l} \right)}{R_{i,k}\left( {\alpha_{i}t_{l}} \right)}}}{\left( {\sum\limits_{m}{\left( {D_{k}\left( t_{m} \right)} \right)^{2}{\sum\limits_{n}\left( {R_{ik}\left( {\alpha_{i}t_{n}} \right)} \right)^{2}}}} \right)^{1/2}}}\end{matrix} & (15)\end{matrix}$

In Eqn. 15, ρ_(i,k) is the correlation of the drug response of the k'thcellular constituent with its response in the i'th pathway. The k'thcellular constituent is assigned to the i'th pathway where ρ_(i,k) islarger than ρ_(i,k) for all l not equal to i. Similarly to the previoussignificance estimations, the statistical significance of thiscorrelation can be determined by randomizing the drug response data inEqn. 15.

5.2. Pathway Activity Representation

In the previous section (see, e.g., Eqn 5), the drug activity on acellular constituent (k) is generally decomposed into pathway activityon the cellular constituent k: $\begin{matrix}{{{D_{k}\left( t_{l} \right)} \cong {\sum\limits_{i}{R_{i,k}\left( {\alpha_{i},t_{l}} \right)}}};} & (16)\end{matrix}$

Where D_(k)(t_(l)) is the drug activity on cellular constituent k whenthe drug is applied at a level t_(l); R_(i,k)(α_(i), t_(d) is theresponse of cellular constituent k in pathway i under perturbation(α_(i), t_(l)) (for the scaling transformation of perturbation levelsusing parameter α_(i,,) see section 5.1, supra, or U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 09/074,983, now U.S. Patent 5,965,352, previouslyincorporated by reference). R_(i,k)(α_(i), t_(l)) represents the drugactivity on the cellular constituent in pathway i. Drug activity on acellular constituent k in pathway i is represented as:

 D_(i,k)(t_(l))=R_(i,k)(α_(i),t_(l))  (17)

In this representation, the drug activity on a particular pathway isrepresented by drug activity on a number of individual cellularconstituents. Using the hypothetical pathways in FIG. 1 as an example,the drug activity on pathway 102 is represented by the drug activity oncellular constituents P2, P3, G1, G2, G3, etc.

For some embodiments of the invention, the drug activity on a particularpathway is more conveniently represented by a single parameter, ratherthan a group of responses of cellular constituents. In some preferredembodiments, the drug activity on pathway i, when the drug is applied atthe level t, is represented by: $\begin{matrix}{{D_{i}\left( t_{l} \right)} = {\sum\limits_{k}{\beta_{k}{R_{i,k}\left( {\alpha_{i},t_{l}} \right)}}}} & (18)\end{matrix}$

Where β_(k) is a constant for cellular constituent k. One of skill inthe art would appreciate that the selection of constant α_(k) isdependent upon the unit used in measuring cellular constituentresponses. For example, if both a cellular constituent responsemeasurement is the activity of an enzyme, while another cellularconstituent response measurement is a gene expression ratio, twodifferent constants can be assigned to the two different cellularconstituent types to adjust the difference in units and ranges of themeasurements. Selection of the constants in a linear transformation totake account for different units of measurements and different range ofvariables is well within the skill of those in the art. In oneparticularly preferred embodiment, where the response of all cellularconstituents are measured as the expression ratios (expression underperturbation over expression without perturbation), the α_(k) is giventhe value of 1.

The above representation of the drug activity is dose (in vivo) orconcentration (in vitro) dependent, i.e., a particular drug activity isapplicable only when the specific dose or concentration is applied. Insome preferred embodiments, a single parameter is used to represent thedrug activity on a particular pathway. In some such embodiments, thedrug activity on a particular pathway is represented by the minimallevel (C_(i)) of the drug needed to achieve certain threshold responsein a particular pathway, i.e.:

C_(i)=minimal level of a drug to achieve a threshold response;  (19)

When gene expression levels are measured, the threshold response may bedefined as more than two fold, preferably more than three fold, morepreferably more than fold, of induction or repression of geneexpression. For example, if a minimum of 0.5 μg/mnL of a drug is neededto achieve a two fold induction or suppression of all the genes in afirst pathway, the activity of the drug on the first pathway can berepresented by the minimum level of 0.5 μg/mL. Similarly, if a minimumof 1.0 μg/mL of the same drug is needed to induce or repress all thegenes in a second pathway, the activity of the drug on the secondpathway can be represented by the minimum level of 1.0 μg/mL. Accordingto such a representation, the drug has a higher activity on the firstpathway then the second pathway, because of the lower minimum level forthe first pathway.

Because not all cellular constituents in a pathway respond in a similarfashion and the range of response of each cellular constituent in onepathway may vary in its range, different threshold levels can be set fordifferent cellular constituents. One particularly preferred embodimentuses the number of cellular constituents induced or repressed. Forexample, if a minimum level of a drug is needed to induce or repressmore than 10)%, preferably more than 20%, more preferably more than 90%of the cellular constituents in a particular pathway for more than twofold, preferably more than three folds, more preferably more than 10fold, the minimum level may represent the activity of the drug on theparticular pathway.

The threshold levels may also be set according to the biologicalfunction of the particular pathways. For example, if a biologicalpathway is known to suppress immune responses if some of its genes areinduced for more than two-fold, the drug activity (therapeutic activity)for the biological pathway may be represented by the minimum level ofthe drug required to induce or suppress those genes. Similarly, if aninduction of more than two fold of cellular constituents of a pathwayoutside the target of a drug indicates potential toxicity (See thefollowing sections), the threshold of two fold induction or repressionmay be set as toxic response and the minimum level of the drug needed toachieve the two fold induction or repression may be used to indicate thedrug activity (toxic) on the particular pathway.

5.3. Evaluation of Relative Efficacy and Toxicity of a Drug

One aspect of the invention provides methods for determining thespecificity index (SI) of a drug in an in vitro system, based upon thedrug's activity on target versus off-target pathways. The target andoff-target pathways are previously discussed, for example, in Section5.1, supra. The specificity index measurements is particularly useful toevaluate the relative efficacy and toxicity of a drug candidate duringthe early phase of drug screening. Specificity index is defined hereinas the relative activity of a drug against its primary target pathwayversus its activity against “off-target” pathways. Methods fordetermining the activities of a drug on different pathways have beendescribed in detail in the Sections 5.1 and 5.2, supra. Some of themethods are also described in Stoughton and Friend, Methods forIdentifying Pathways of Drug Action, U.S. patent application Ser. No.09/074,983, now U.S Patent 5,965,352, incorporated previously byreference for all purposes. One of skill in the art would appreciatethat the some methods of the invention are limited by particular methodsfor detecting “on-target” or “off-target” activities of a drug.

In one embodiment, the specificity of a drug is evaluated using aspecificity index (SI) defined as: $\begin{matrix}{{SI} = \frac{n \cdot D_{target}}{\sum D_{{off}\text{-}{target}}}} & (20)\end{matrix}$

Wherein D_(target) is the response of the target pathway to the drug (orthe activity of a drug on its target pathways); D_(off-target) is theresponse of an off-target pathway to the drug (or the activity of drugon the off-target pathway); n is the number of off-target pathwaysexamined. It is sometimes preferable to include only off-targetpathway(s) that may be involved in adverse events.

The drug activity of the target pathway (D_(target)) and off targetpathways (D_(off-target)) may be represented as response of individualcellular constituent as in Eqn (17) or as response of the pathway as inEqn (18). The response may also be in a dose dependent fashion(D_(target)(t_(l)) and D_(off-target)(t_(l))) as in Eqns 17 and 18 or ina dose independent fashion (such as 19).

The specificity index of a drug is particularly useful for the selectionof drug candidates at the early stage of a drug discovery process (suchas for an in vitro screening process). The specificity indexes of drugcandidates are determined using an in vitro model system. A lowspecificity index indicates relative small activity on the targetpathway vs. activity on off-target pathways. The drug candidates withlow specificity indexes are eliminated from the candidate list, becauseof the likelihood of off-target activity or toxicity.

5.4. Therapeutic Index Prediction

As discussed in Section 2, Background of the Invention, supra,therapeutic index is defined as either as the ratio of the TD₅₀ of anundesirable or limiting side effect to the ED₅₀ (medium effective dose)for the desired therapeutic effect or the ratio of the LD₅₀ (medianlethal dose) to the ED₅₀. A therapeutic index provides a simple indexfor evaluating the safety and efficacy of a drug.

In one aspect of the invention, the drug activity on a target(D_(target)) and off-target (D_(off-target)) pathways are determined toestimate in vitro and in vivo therapeutic indexes. In such embodiments,the therapeutic index (TI) is defined as: $\begin{matrix}{{TI} = \frac{C_{{off}\text{-}{target}}}{C_{t\quad {arget}}}} & (22)\end{matrix}$

Wherein C_(off-target) is the concentration of the drug above which aresponse of off-target pathways reaches a threshold; C_(target) is theconcentration of the drug above which a response of target pathwaysreaches a threshold.

A threshold definition allows objective comparison of the therapeuticindex for alternative drugs (such as drugs used to affect the sametarget pathway) in a model system. One of skill in the art wouldappreciate that the thresholds can be determined based upon the modelsystem and particular pathways involved. In some embodiments, assignmentof the threshold value is based upon clinical experience of similardrugs in the past, such threshold value setting is well within theordinary skill of an artisan.

Even though it may be difficult to extrapolate a therapeutic indexobtained from a model organism to the human or other target systems, thetherapeutic index of a particular drug candidate relative to alternativedrugs should be indicative of the ranking of those drugs in the targetsystems, especially when off-target effects of those drugs are similar.

In one preferred method, the threshold is set according to therelationship between toxicity and the pathways involved. For example, ifa particular concentration of a drug that induces a particularoff-target pathway by two-fold in a model system (such as a yeast modelsystem) and later the drug is found to have toxicity when administeredto a patient population at a dose that is equivalent to theconcentration, the toxicity threshold may be set as two fold inductionfor this particular pathway. Similarly, if a particular concentration ofa drug that represses a particular target pathway by three folds in amodel system and later the drug is found to have a desired therapeuticeffect in a patient administered with a dose that is equivalent to theconcentration, the therapeutic threshold can be set as three-fold ofrepression for the particular target pathway.

In one particularly preferred embodiment, the response of pathways to adrug is determined by the expression of the genes in the pathways. Inthis embodiment, the target or off target pathway responses reach thethreshold when expression of most of the genes is induced or repressedby two-fold.

Example 1 (Section 6, infra) illustrates the one such embodiment. Inthis example, the expression of a number of genes are monitored as awild type yeast culture is subjected to a graded levels of the drugFK506 (FIG. 8A). Similar experiments are repeated with a yeast culturewhose CNA1 and CNA2 genes are deleted (FIG. 8B). CNAl and CNA2 are twocomponents of the calcineurin multi-protein complex. Because the drugFK506 acts upon the calcineurin protein to exert its activity on thecalcineurin pathway. Deletion of CNA1 and CNA2 eliminates the primarytarget pathway for FK506. For a discussion of the yeast model system,see, Cardens et al., 1994, “Yeast as Model T Cells, Prosp. In DRUGDICOVER. DESIGN, 2:103-126.

FIG. 8A shows that the expression of the most of the genes affected viathe primary target, the calcineurin pathway (those genes that do notrespond in the absence of the calcineurin pathway), reaches two foldinduction or repression at the concentration of 0.2 μg/ml. Theexpression of most off-target genes (represented by bold dash lines)reaches two fold induction or repression at the concentration of 12μg/ml. The therapeutic index is for this drug in the yeast model istherefore 12/0.2=60.

Therapeutic index data obtained from cell culture assays and/or animalstudies can be used in predicting the therapeutic index in vivo andformulating a range of dosages for use in humans. The dosage of suchcompounds preferably lies within a range of plasma concentrations thatinclude the ED₅₀ with little or no toxicity. The dosage may vary withinthis range depending upon the dosage form employed and the route ofadministration utilized. The exact formulation, route of administrationand dosage can be chosen by the individual physician in view of thepatient's condition. (See e.g. Fingl et al., 1975, In: ThePharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, Ch. 1 p1).

5.5. Drug Therapy Monitoring

As discussed in the background section, clinical toxicity signs aredifficult to detect. Drug effect or toxicity may not show up as clinicalsigns before it is too late to make a informed therapeutic decision. Thedrug response of at least some pathways, however, are relatively faster.Accordingly, this invention provides methods for evaluating the drugeffect or toxicity in a patient that undergoes drug therapy usingpathway activities rather than clinical signs or individual cellularconstituent changes.

In some embodiments, the expression of a large number of genes in thepatient (a human or an animal) is determined while the patient undergoestherapy. The drug responses of the primary target pathway and off-targetpathways are determined according to the methods of the invention andother suitable methods. If a patient's primary target pathway does notrespond to the drug therapy and/or the off-target pathways respondstrongly to the drug therapy, the therapy may be discontinued in favorof alternative treatments. Because the drug response of pathways cansometimes be determined earlier than clinical signs, the method of theinvention offers the advantage that clinical decision can be made beforeclinical toxicity and therapy failure is detected by clinical signs.

5.6. Drug Efficacy and Toxicity Evaluation for Individuals

Another aspect of the invention provides methods for determiningindividual variations in drug response. These methods are particularlyuseful in selecting drug therapy plan and dose calculation for aparticular individual.

In some embodiments, the expression of a large number of genes in apatient is monitored as the patient receives a plurality ofperturbations. The perturbation can be a particular drug given atdifferent doses. The drug responses of the target and off targetpathways are determined according to the method of invention and othersuitable methods. Suitable dosage can be determined so that the drugelicits a strong drug response in the target pathways and a relativelyweak response in the off-target pathways. If a strong response inoff-target pathways is illicit, the drug is determined to be unsuitablefor the particular patient.

In such embodiments, clinical toxicity can be avoid by closelymonitoring the drug response of off target pathway. A strong drugresponse of off target pathways may be detected before clinical toxicitydevelops.

In some embodiments, the specificity index and therapeutic index of adrug for individual patients may be estimated by perturbing the patientswith different levels of perturbation and the drug. A large number ofcellular constituents are measured. The drug response is decomposed intopathway responses according to the methods described in Sections 5.1 and5.2, supra. The specificity index and therapeutic index are estimatedusing the methods described in the above sections.

5.7. Computer Implementation

The analytic methods described in the previous subsections canpreferably be implemented by use of the following computer systems andaccording to the following programs and methods. FIG. 9 illustrates anexemplary computer system suitable for implementation of the analyticmethods of this invention. Computer system 901 is illustrated ascomprising internal components and being linked to external components.The internal components of this computer system include processorelement 902 interconnected with maxn memory 903. For example, computersystem 901 can be an Intel Pentium®-based processor of 200 Mhz orgreater clock rate and with 32 MB or more of main memory.

The external components include mass storage 904. This mass storage canbe one or more hard disks (which are typically packaged together withthe processor and memory). Such hard disks are typically of 1 GB orgreater storage capacity. Other external components include userinterface device 905, which can be a monitor and keyboard, together withpointing device 906, which can be a “mouse”, or other graphic inputdevices (not illustrated). Typically, computer system 901 is also linkedto network link 907, which can be part of an Ethernet link to otherlocal computer systems, remote computer systems, or wide areacommunication networks, such as the Internet. This network link allowscomputer system 901 to share data and processing tasks with othercomputer systems.

Loaded into memory during operation of this system are several softwarecomponents, which are both standard in the art and special to theinstant invention. These software components collectively cause thecomputer system to function according to the methods of this invention.These software components are typically stored on mass storage 904.Software component 910 represents the operating system, which isresponsible for managing computer system 901 and its networkinterconnections. This operating system can be of the Microsoft Windows™family, such as Windows 95, Windows 98, or Windows NT. Softwarecomponent 911 represents common languages and functions convenientlypresent on this system to assist programs implementing the methodsspecific to this invention. Languages that can be used to program theanalytic methods of this invention include C and C++, or JAVA®. Mostpreferably, the methods of this invention are programmed in mathematicalsoftware packages which allow symbolic entry of equations and high-levelspecification of processing, including algorithms to be used, therebyfreeing a user of the need to procedurally program individual equationsor algorithms. Such packages include Matlab from Mathworks (Natick,Mass.), Mathematica from Wolfram Research (Champaign, Ill.), or S-Plusfrom Math Soft (Seattle, Wash.).

In an exemplary implementation, to practice the methods of thisinvention, a user first loads drug response data and pathway responsedata into computer system 901. These data can be directly entered by theuser from monitor and keyboard 905, or from other computer systemslinked by network connection 907, or on removable storage media (notillustrated). Next, the user causes execution of drug responserepresentation software 912, after optionally supplying initial pathwaysof interest, followed by execution of significance assessment software913. Thereby, the user obtains a model drug response and its statisticalsignificance.

Alternative systems and methods for implementing the analytic methods ofthis invention will be apparent to one of skill in the art and areintended to be comprehended within the accompanying claims. Inparticular, the accompanying claims are intended to include thealternative program structures for implementing the methods of thisinvention that will be readily apparent to one of skill in the art.

6. EXAMPLE: THERAPEUTIC INDEX OF FK506

The invention having been described, the following example is offered byway of illustration and not limitation. This example illustrates theestimation of therapeutic index for FK506 using a yeast culture model.

6.1. Methods and Materials

An overnight starter culture of S.cerevisiae strain R563 (Genotype: Mata ura3-52 lys2-801 ade2-101 trp1-Δ63 his3-Δ200 leu2-Δ1 his3::HIS3) wasdiluted YAPD plus 10 mM CaCl₂ medium (see, e.g., Ausubel et al., eds.,1996, Current Protocols in Molecular Biology, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,especially ch. 13) to an OD₆₀₀ of 0.1 and grown at 30° C. with 300 rpmshaking. After a min, FK506 dissolved in ethanol was added to culturesat final concentrations of 0.10, 0.31, 1.0, 1.6, 5.0 16.0, 50 μg/ml.

Control cultures were treated with the same volume of just ethanol.Growth was monitored by OD₆₀₀ and cells were harvested atOD₆₀₀=1.4+/−0.1 by centrifugation for 2 min at ambient temperature in aSorvall RC5C+ centrifuge in a SLA-1500 rotor. The supernatant wasdiscarded, the residual liquid removed by pipetting, and the cells wereresuspended in 4 ml RNA Extraction Buffer (0.2 M Tris HCl pH 7.6, 0.5 MNaCl, 10 mM EDTA, 1% SDS). Cells were vortexed for 3 sec to resuspendthe pellet and then immediately transferred to 50 ml conical centrifugetubes containing 2.5 g baked glass beads (425-600 μM) and 4 mlphenol:chloroforn (50:50 v/v). Tubes were vortexed for 2 min in the VWRMulti-tube Vortexer at setting 8 prior to centrifugation at 3000 rpm for5 min at ambient temperature in a Sorvall Model T600D tabletopcentrifuge to separate the phases. The aqueous phase was reextractedwith equal volume of phenol:chloroform (50:50 v/v) by vortexing for secat setting 6 followed by centrifugation as before. To the aqueous phasewas added 2.5 volumes of ethanol and the samples were stored at −80° C.until isolation of polyA⁺ MnRNA.

In all cases, polyA⁺ RNA was isolated by oligo-dT cellulosechromatography using two selections by standard protocols (see, e.g.,Sambrook et al. 1989, Molecular Cloning A Laboratory Manual, Cold SpringHarbor Laboratory Press). Two micrograms of polyA⁺ RNA was used inreverse transcription reactions. cDNA was purified and hybridized topolylysine slides.

Extent of hybridization was determined by scanning with a prototypemulti-frame CCD carnera slides produced by Applied Precision, Inc.Images were processed by informnatics and imported into the Inpharmadatabase and analyzed using the MatLab data analysis package.

6.2. Results

Table 1 shows the off-target genes identified by titration in deletionstrain. The response of those genes to FK506 were considered asoff-target activity. Each ORF (Open Reading Frame) may be correspondingto an off-target gene.

TABLE 1 OFF-TARGET GENES IDENTIFIED BY TITRATION IN DELETION STRAINS.ORF Log10 (Ratio) YER175C 1.0121 SNZ1 0.9834 ARG1 0.9516 ARG5,6 0.9136YGL117W 0.8608 HIS5 0.8266 HIS4 0.8178 ECM13 0.8176 ARG4 0.7774 SNO10.7711 YMR085W 0.7679 RIB5 0.7436 YOL150C 0.7246 GRE2 0.6836 SNQ2 0.6624CPA2 0.645 YOR203W 0.6378 ARO3 0.6261 HIS3 0.6152 YMR097C 0.6945 PDR50.597 YOR1 0.5928 CPA1 0.5645 YHM1 0.5235 NCE3 0.5112 YPL088W 0.4764

FIGS. 8A-C illustrate the drug response data generated by a series ofFK506 exposures. The horizontal axis is concentrations of the FK506 inlogarithmic scale and the vertical axis is the values of the logarithmof the expression ratio of the genes most affected by FK506 on thevertical axis. FIG. 8A shows the transcriptional response of the yeastgenome to a titration of the drug FK506. FIG. 8B shows thetranscriptional response in a different experiment when the drug isapplied to a yeast strain in which both components of the calcineurinprotein have been removed by deletion of the genes CNA1 and CNA2.Plotted genes have P-Value <0.03 and abs(Log10(expression ratio)) >0.3at two or more concentrations in the series. P-Value is the probabilitythat the up or down regulation is due to measurement error, asdetermined from observed statistics of the errors in Log 10(expressionratio).

The transcriptional response in FIG. 8B is ‘off-target’ in the sensethat the response must be independent of the primary therapeutic effectof FK506, an immunosuppressant, which is via inhibition of thecalcineurin protein via the action of the complex of FK506 with itsligand FK506 binding protein (Cardenas, et al., 1994, Yeast as model Tcells, in PERPECTIVES IN DRUG DISCOVERY AND DESIGN, 2:103-126). Althoughthe relation with actual clinical toxicity is not direct, a toxicconcentration may be defined as the concentration at which the‘off-target’ transcriptional responses of many genes reach two-foldinduction or repression. This concentration is given by inspection ofFIG. 8B, and is approximately 12 mg/ml. The responses in FIG. 8A resultfrom the combined effects of FK506 via calcineurin and the effects viaother pathways in which the responses of those genes which respond inthe calcineurin-deleted strain are represented by bold dashed lines. Theresponses represented by smooth lines are those via the primary pathway(calcineurin). These responses achieve twofold induction or repressionat concentration about 0.2 mg/ml. The therapeutic index for this drug inthis system is therefore estimated to be about 12/0.2=60. FIG. 8C is thesame as FIG. 8A except for that the threshold values are indicated.

7. REFERENCES CITED

All references including patent applications and publications citedherein are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety and forall purposes to the same extent as if each individual publication orpatent or patent application was specifically and individually indicatedto be incorporated by reference in its entirety for all purposes. Manymodifications and variations of this invention can be made withoutdeparting from its spirit and scope, as will be apparent to thoseskilled in the art. The specific embodiments described herein areoffered by way of example only, and the invention is to be limited onlyby the terms of the appended claims, along with the full scope ofequivalents to which such claims are entitled.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for monitoring a therapy for a patient,said therapy comprising administering a drug to said patient, saidmethod comprising comparing activity of said drug on its target pathway(D_(target)) and at least one off-target pathway (D_(off-target)) insaid patient, wherein said D_(target) and D_(off-target) are based onmeasurements of a plurality of cellular constituents.
 2. The method ofclaim 1 wherein said D_(target) and D_(off-target) are determinedaccording to a method comprising: (a) measuring a plurality of cellularconstituents in said patient being treated at different levels of saiddrug to obtain a drug response profile; (b) perturbing said patient witha plurality of pathway perturbations to obtain a plurality of pathwayperturbation profiles, each pathway perturbation profile comprisingmeasurements of a plurality of cellular constituents in response to aplurality of levels of said pathway perturbation; and (c) decomposingsaid drug response profile into said D_(target) and D_(off-target). 3.The method of claim 2 wherein said measured plurality of cellularconstituents is transcript levels of genes.
 4. The method of claim 2wherein said measured plurality of cellular constituents is proteinlevels.
 5. The method of claim 1 wherein the patient is a human.
 6. Themethod of claim 1 wherein the patient is an animal.
 7. The method ofclaim 1 wherein said comparing comprises calculating a specificity index(SI) according to the formula:${SI} = {{SI} = \frac{n \cdot D_{target}}{\sum D_{{off}\text{-}{target}}}}$

wherein n is the number of off-target pathways.
 8. A method formonitoring treatment with a drug for a patient comprising (a) measuringa plurality of cellular constituents in said patient being treated atdifferent levels of said drug to obtain a drug response profile; (b)perturbing said patient with a plurality of pathway perturbations toobtain a plurality of pathway perturbation profiles, each pathwayperturbation profile comprising measurements of a plurality of cellularconstituents in response to a plurality of levels of said pathwayperturbation; (c) decomposing said drug response profile into aplurality of pathway response profiles using said pathway perturbationprofiles; and (d) determining relative activity of said drug on itstarget pathway and at least one off-target pathway.
 9. The method ofclaim 8 wherein said measured plurality of cellular constituents istranscript levels of genes.
 10. The method of claim 8 wherein saidmeasured plurality of cellular constituents is protein levels.
 11. Themethod of claim 8 wherein the patient is a human.
 12. The method ofclaim 8 wherein the patient is an animal.
 13. A method for monitoring atherapy for a patient, said therapy comprising administering a drug tosaid patient, said method comprising: (a) decomposing a drug responseprofile into one or a combination of pathway response profiles, whereinthe drug response profile comprises measurements of a plurality ofcellular constituents in cells of said patient in response toadministration of said drug over a plurality of levels of drug exposure,and each said pathway response profile comprises measurements of aplurality of cellular constituents at a plurality of levels ofperturbation to a biological pathway; and (b) comparing, among said oneor a combination of pathway response profiles, the pathway responseprofiles for the one or more biological pathways associated withtherapeutic effects of the drug with the pathway response profiles forthe one or more biological pathways that are associated with one or morenon-therapeutic effects of the drug, thereby comparing activity of saiddrug on its target pathway (D_(target)) and at least one off-targetpathway (D_(off-target)) and monitoring said therapy in said patient.14. The method of claim 13, wherein said decomposing comprisesidentifying said biological pathways.
 15. The method of claim 13,wherein said pathway response profiles are pathway response profiles ina compendium of pathway response profiles.
 16. The method of claim 2, 8,or 13, further comprising interpolating data in said drug responseprofile prior to said decomposing step.
 17. The method of claim 16,wherein said interpolating is by spline fitting.
 18. The method of claim16, wherein said interpolating is by model-fitting.
 19. The method ofclaim 18, wherein said model-fitting is performed using Hill function${H(u)} = \frac{{a\left( {u/u_{0}} \right)}^{n}}{1 + \left( {u/u_{0}} \right)^{n}}$

wherein a, u₀, and n are adjustable parameters.
 20. The method of claim2, 8, or 13, further comprising interpolating data in said pathwayresponse profiles prior to said decomposing step.
 21. The method ofclaim 20, wherein said interpolating is by spline fitting.
 22. Themethod of claim 20, wherein said interpolating is by model-fitting. 23.The method of claim 22, wherein said model-fitting is performed usingHill function${H(u)} = \frac{{a\left( {u/u_{0}} \right)}^{n}}{1 + \left( {u/u_{0}} \right)^{n}}$

wherein a, u₀, and n are adjustable parameters.
 24. The method of claim13, further comprising transforming said levels of drug exposure intosaid levels of perturbation by a horizontal scaling transformation. 25.The method of claim 24, wherein said horizontal scaling transformationis a linear transformation.
 26. The method of claim 24, wherein saidhorizontal scaling transformation is a polynomial transformation. 27.The method of claim 24, wherein said horizontal scaling transformationis a transformation using Hill function:$p_{i,l} = \frac{{\alpha_{i}\left( {t_{l}/\mu_{i}} \right)}^{n_{i}}}{1 + \left( {t_{l}/\mu_{i}} \right)^{n_{i}}}$

wherein p_(i,l) is the l'th level of perturbation control parameter inthe i'th pathway, t_(l) is the l'th drug exposure level, and α_(i),μ_(i)and n_(i) are scaling parameters.
 28. The method of claim 24, whereinsaid decomposing comprises determining said scaling transformation suchthat said drug response profile is represented by said one or acombination of pathway response profiles.
 29. The method of claim 28,wherein said determining is by a method comprising least squaresminimizing the residue between said drug response profile and said oneor a combination of pathway response profiles.
 30. The method of claim28, wherein said determining is by a method comprising maximizing acorrelation between said drug response and said one or a combination ofpathway response profiles to obtain a maximum.
 31. The method of claim30, wherein said correlation is a normalized correlation.
 32. The methodof claim 29, further comprising determining the statistical significanceof said one or a combination of pathway response profiles by comparingthe value of said residue to an expected probability distribution ofresidues.
 33. The method of claim 32, wherein said expected probabilitydistribution of residues is constructed by repetitively randomlypermutating the drug exposure level index of said drug response profileand calculating said residue for each permutation.
 34. The method ofclaim 32, wherein said expected probability distribution of residues isconstructed by repetitively randomly permutating the perturbation levelindex of each pathway response profile and calculating said residue foreach permutation.
 35. The method of claim 30, further comprisingdetermining the statistical significance of said one or a combination ofpathway response profiles by comparing the value of the maximum to anexpected probability distribution of maxima.
 36. The method of claim 35,wherein said expected probability distribution of maxima is constructedby repetitively randomly permutating the drug exposure level index ofsaid drug response profile and calculating said maximum for eachpermutation.
 37. The method of claim 35, wherein said expectedprobability distribution of maxima is constructed by repetitivelyrandomly permutating the perturbation level index of each pathwayresponse profile and calculating said maximum for each permutation. 38.The method of claim 1, 8, or 13, wherein said D_(target) andD_(off-target) are each represented as responses of individual cellularconstituents to said drug.
 39. The method of claim 1, 8, or 13, whereinsaid D_(targer) and D_(off-target) are represented as responses of therespective target and off-target pathways to said drug.
 40. The methodof claim 39, wherein said response of the target pathway and saidresponse of each off-target pathway is a linear combination of responsesof individual cellular constituents in the respective pathway.
 41. Themethod of claim 1, wherein said activity of said drug on its targetpathway (D_(target)) and at least one off-target pathway(D_(off-target)) in said patient is represented by dose or concentrationindependent values.
 42. The method of claim 41, wherein said activity ofsaid drug on its target pathway in said patient is represented byC_(target) and said activity of said drug on at least one off-targetpathway in said patient is represented by C_(off-target), saidC_(target) and C_(off-target) being the minimal level of said drug toachieve a threshold response in said target and said at least oneoff-target pathway, respectively.
 43. The method of claim 42, whereinsaid comparing comprising calculating a therapeutic index (TI) accordingto the formula:${TI} = {\frac{C_{{off}\text{-}{target}}}{C_{t\quad {arget}}}.}$


44. The method of claim 1, 8 or 13, wherein values of said measurementsof a plurality of cellular constituents have been converted intocellular constituent set values.
 45. A method for monitoring a therapyfor a patient, said therapy comprising administering a drug to saidpatient, said method comprising decomposing a drug response profile intoone or a combination of pathway response profiles, wherein said drugresponse profile comprises measurements of a plurality of cellularconstituents in cells of said patient in response to administration ofsaid drug over a plurality of levels of drug dosage, and each saidpathway response profile comprises measurements of a plurality ofcellular constituents at a plurality of levels of perturbation to abiological pathway, thereby monitoring said therapy.